INSPEC42804

• Permit No: M1978051
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 11/13/1995
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• (Page 2) •
MINE ID ~ OR PROSPECTING ID ~ M-78-051
INSPECTION DATE 11 13/95 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO
OBSERVATIONS
This inspection was performed by the Division ae part of its monitoring of 110 permits. The
operator was contacted about the inspection, and a time was arranged to allow the operator
to be present at the site during the inspection.
This is a county pit, for which there is no requirement for a stormwater management plan or
a financial warranty.
The site ie identified by a permit sign posted at the entrance. However, the permit number
on the sign ie incorrect, and should be corrected. There were no markers observed to
delineate the permit area boundary. Lack of boundary markers ie noted in this report as a
problem under the topic of "signs and markers''. Please refer to the Construction Materials
Rule 3.1.12 for the requirement of adequate signs and markers. See the last page of this
report for the explanation of the corrective actions for this problem.
The site is in an upland area, with drainage from the permit area toward the northwest and
south. There are two main areas of exacavation here: a smaller area on the east end, and a
larger one on the west. A short dirt road connects the two areas, and a small pile of
concrete riprap ie present between the two pits. The head of a natural gully (one of many
in this part of the county) extends into the permit area from the south between the pits, and
there is no mining of material in this part of the permit.
There is difficulty in determining the extent of the permit area, not only from the lack of
markers oneite, but also due to there being no adequate map of the permit in the record. The
north edge of the permit touches the county right-of-way fence, but the other boundary
locations were not known. It was impossible to tell whether the operation actually was
limited to the 5.5-acre permit area. The operator moat prepare a map showing the boundaries
in relation to locatable landmarks on the ground, and with sufficient detail to determine the
total acreage of all affected lands, and locations of the various activities oneite. The
lack of a map is noted ae a problem under the topic of "records" and the corrective action
is explained on the last page.
Most mining ie carried out by pushing material down from the top by bulldozer, stockpiled,
and later removed by loader and truck. This inspector encourages the operator to continue
to mine in this fashion, mainly because it helps to maintain gentler elopes. This material,
however, ie predominantly coarse sand and highly erodible by water. Deep fissures are
present on the site, not only on the worked elopes but on the fairly level pit floors also.
These erosion features range from 1 to 3 feet deep. The sandy material at the edges of the
operations areas, where the filled material is thickest, is being cut into deeply. There ie
no evidence of good stormwater runoff or sediment control. Though there ie no sediment being
carried offeite at this time (it ie deposited just inside the permit boundary) there is the
potential for sedimentation problems offeite. The operator should be aware that material
carried offeite ie a disturbance which constitutes a possible violation. At this time, the
topic of "erosion/sedimentation" ie noted as a problem, and the corrective action ie
explained on the last page of this report. (This same problem was noted in the 11/7/81
inspection report, which recommended stabilizing the elopes with vegetative cover. If that
cannot be done on actively mined elopes, then the mining equipment used oneite should
construct temporary terraces on or at the toe of the elopes, or anchored hay bales could be
used ae a temporary measure.)
Another location where potential offeite damage exists is along the short road leading to the
east pit. The cut elope adjacent to the county road is steep and unstable. The operator did
grade some of the elope to a stable configuration farther east, but this area in question
still needs attention. Due to its proximity to the r-o-w fence, backfilling from below is
the only option.
The final inspection topic ie "topsoil." The permit application stated that though there ie
3 to 6 inches of topsoil here, none had been saved (from the pre-law mining disturbance).
There is still no topsoil saved, though the disturbed area has presumably grown in the last
17 years since the permit was issued. The approved reclamation plan states that "in the
future soil suitable for vegetation will be accumulated." There will undoubtedly be a need
for soil to be imported for reclamation, but the operator should begin segregating all soil