Laserfiche WebLink
PERMIT #: M- 1984 -094 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: MAC <br />INSPECTION DATE: July 27, 2012 <br />Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan: <br />During the previous inspection, the Division cited a problem for failure to dispose of refuse properly. Based on <br />the photographs of the site taken during the previous inspection, it appears that the Operator has removed much <br />of the refuse. However, there is still refuse within the permit area which must be removed. The Division <br />observed a number of empty 55 gallon drums as well as tires and other pieces of equipment not directly related <br />to the mining operation. All 55 gallon drums, 5 gallon buckets and any other liquids which are stored on the site <br />must be properly labeled, stored off the ground, and be neatly organized in a single area. In addition, the <br />Operator is storing various pieces of equipment just outside of the permit boundary. The Operator should be <br />careful to not utilize this area for equipment that is used in the mining operation, as this would be considered <br />affected area and would need to be incorporated into the permit boundary. The presence of refuse on the site has <br />been cited as a problem and will require corrective action by the Operator. Please see the first page of this report <br />for additional information. <br />There is a substantial amount of tree slash located on the western portion of the mine site. The slash is mulched <br />and sold locally. The presence of this material must be accounted for in the financial warranty calculation. In <br />order for the site to be reclaimed to one of the approved post- mining land uses, the tree slash would need to be <br />removed from the site. <br />The Division observed several small piles of concrete rubble with rebar and asphalt throughout the site. The <br />presence of this material has been cited as a problem and will require corrective action by the Operator; please <br />see the first page of this report for additional information. Pursuant to Rule 3.1.5(9), if an Operator intends to <br />backfill inert structural fill generated outside of the approved permit area, it is the Operator's responsibility to <br />provide the Division notice of any proposed backfill activity not identified in the approved Reclamation Plan. <br />The Operator should note that rebar is not considered to be inert and may not be backfilled. The notice to the <br />Division shall include but is not limited to: <br />a) a narrative that describes the approximate location of the proposed activity. <br />b) the approximate volume of inert material to be backfilled. <br />c) a signed affidavit certifying that the material is clean and inert, as defined in Rule 1.1(20). <br />d) the approximate dates the proposed activity will commence and end. <br />e) an explanation of how the backfilled site will result in a post - mining configuration that is compatible with the <br />approved post - mining land use. <br />f) a general engineering plan stating how the material will be placed and stabilized in a manner to avoid <br />unacceptable settling and voids. <br />Reclamation Success: <br />As stated earlier in this report, the approved post- mining land use is rangeland and developed water resource. A <br />review of the permit file found that the Division does not have a record of the design details for the reservoir. <br />The Division is unable to calculate a financial warranty based on a post- mining land use of developed water <br />resource without details on how the reservoir is going to be constructed. The Division will calculate the <br />financial warranty based on reclaiming the site to rangeland. <br />The Operator should note that construction of a reservoir cannot commence until the Division has received and <br />approved the design details, which may be submitted as a Technical Revision. <br />Signs and Markers: <br />The permit sign was posted at the site entrance as required by Rule 3.1.12. The Division traversed the site with <br />the Operator and located the permit boundary markers. All but two of the boundary markers were identified. <br />The Division could not locate the boundary marker which lies immediately to the west of the site entrance and <br />the boundary marker which lies approximately 300 feet to the east of the site entrance. The missing boundary <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />