INSPEC44203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: nn_ioa4-n4~ INSPECTION DATE: ~~-~-n~ INSPECTOR=S INITIALS: ~_ This inspection was conducted as part of the Division's monitoring of permitted mining operations. The operator, David Curtis, accompanied me. This is a 9.99 acre permit. It appears that about 6 acres have been affected by mining and reclamation activities. Approximately 2 acres of the west and north pit highwalls have been satisfactorily graded, topsoiled and revegetated. The operator could be released from further reclamation responsibility for that portion of the permit area. as Iona as he does not plan to re-disturb it. The file indicates that there was some erosion in the northwest corner of the reclaimed area and that the operator corrected the problem. This erosion problem has not recurred. The affected land area of the present pit operation is about 2 - 2.5 acres. Thepermit limits the disturbed area to 2.5 acres. There is no drainage from the pit. The operation is consistent with the 2002 annual report map and the permit. No problems were observed. The permit boundary markers were observed. The operation is within the boundary. The reclamation bond being held by the Division is $5,000. Because the operator slopes his pit as he extracts gravel and there would not be a significant amount of earth moving that would need to be done to reclaim the site, the bond is adequate. However, if the operator wants to disturb more land for his operation, he may have to reclaim additional land to stay within the 2.5 acre disturbance limitation, and avoid having to modify the permit and increase the bond. permit boundary and that the Division might consider such an activity to be a possible violation of his permit. Mr. Curtis could not locate a copy of the written approval letter from the Division. The file contains two letters form Mr. Curtis regarding this issue one dated July 6. 1997 and the other October 2. 1997. A acreage for the undisturbed area south of the pit." Upon review, It is evident that Mr. Curtis' letter of July 6, 1997 was intended to be a technical revision application. However, the Division must not have recognized it as such and did not act on it, even though , two inspection reports, To attempt to resolve this issue, the Division will return Mr. Curtis' SS50.00 with a letter explaining the action and giving Mr. Curtis several options to be able to remove the ridge of land without a possible violation of the Law and Regulations.