My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-02-28_INSPECTION - C1981014
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2016-02-28_INSPECTION - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2020 10:26:11 PM
Creation date
3/1/2016 8:21:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
2/28/2016
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DRMS
To
W.D. Corley
Inspection Date
2/24/2016
Email Name
RDZ
JRS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
February 24, 2016 C-1981-014/Southfield Mine RDZ <br /> Dorchester tore up the road by using it when the ground was muddy. They then repaired it with plant reject <br /> material rather than gravel. Per Dr. Corley,this material did not last long on the surface. <br /> Per Dr. Corley,the road cut along the haul road to the RDA is a significant source of sediment. Runoff from this <br /> road drains to Pond 5. <br /> RECLAMATION SUCCESS -Rule 4.15,Rule 3: <br /> On the pipeline corridor from Pond 3 to the facilities area there is an erosion feature that is 1.5 to 2 feet deep. <br /> EFCI has noted that this is not within the Southfield disturbance area. <br /> Near the portal area,EFCI removed two sections of steel pipe(Mr. Weaver had them in his truck),but another <br /> pipe remained in the ground,just north of the Magpie Diversion. <br /> The spur off of the road to MW-NW was inspected by Al Weaver and Rob Zuber. The vegetation on this <br /> reclaimed corridor looks to be very good, and disturbance markers are in place. There are two features at the <br /> north end of this corridor that need to be researched and discussed: a metal structure that could be a large manhole <br /> (it is full of dirt except for the top three to four feet) and a small pile that could be topsoil. <br /> No problems were seen with reclamation at the facility/portal area,the RDA, or the recent reclamation of the <br /> substation. <br /> SUBSIDENCE—Rule 4.20: <br /> Two sets of subsidence holes were inspected near the reclaimed Newlin Creek Topsoil Stockpile. Dr. Corley and <br /> Dr. Mergen directed the inspection team to the locations. One set of holes is approximately one fifth of a mile <br /> northeast of the former stockpile, and the other set is approximately one third of a mile south of the stockpile. The <br /> features in both sets appear to be a danger to livestock, and this was stated by Jack Robeda,who ranches within <br /> the permit boundary and on land adjacent to it. The near surface holes are approximately one foot wide and <br /> several feet long. Within these shallow features are one-foot diameter holes that appear to be very deep—eight <br /> feet or possibly much deeper. <br /> The 2012 subsidence repair area near the Thompson driveway was inspected. A significant amount of Mullein <br /> and cheat grass were seen. A new subsidence hole is developing. It is next to a large fallen tree and is now <br /> approximately two feet deep in places. <br /> No evidence of subsidence damage was seen along CR92. None was seen along CR15 either, although Carin <br /> Corley noted that the road sunk many years ago. It is assumed that the County has no current problems with this <br /> stretch of road,but this should be confirmed during the SL-04 adequacy process. <br /> Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 5 <br /> Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 <br /> Page 4 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.