My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC01791
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC01791
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:56:54 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:02:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983193
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
8/16/2005
Doc Name
insp rept
From
dmg
To
Monk Plant
Inspection Date
8/10/2005
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.
/
3
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
ORIGINAL-PUBLIC FILE <br />(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: nn_t9a~-t9s <br />INSPECTION DATE: -R/t(11D.5 INSPECTORS INITIALS: ~- <br />OBSERVATION <br />The Division conducted a monitoring inspection of the site as part of sites <br />to be inspected during the fiscal years 2005/06 to make sure the sites are <br />in compliance with the Mined Land Rules and Regulations. The site is a <br />small 112 construction materials operation located along Volmer Road in E1 <br />Paso County, with a total of 35 acres permitted and 20 acres to be <br />affected. Operator was contacted over the phone but was unable to attend. <br />As reported in 2000 inspection report, most of the previously mined acres <br />have been graded and sloped. The last few years the only mining related <br />activity in the area is removal of material from existing stockpiles. There <br />was a considerable size processed asphalt material noted along the North <br />Side of the permit area. According to Mr. Newlon, when contacted over the <br />phone on S/15/O5,he stated that the martial is to be utilized in the <br />asphalt batch plant the operator plans to permit. If an asphalt batch plant <br />is going to be placed with in the permit area that was not approved under <br />the current permit, it would require a submittal of a technical Revision. <br />It could also require an increase in financial warranty, depending on the <br />structure and whether it is going to be a portable or permanent batch <br />plant. <br />As reported in the previous inspection report, the operator is utilizing a <br />potion of the permit area as a parking area for its employees. There were a <br />lot of trucks pulling in and out of the permit area at the time of the <br />inspection. Since most of the activity on site is related to concrete batch <br />plant and related activities and the post mining land use states both range <br />land and Industrial, the Division would like the operator to provide a <br />county zoning that would allow the existing structures to stay in place <br />because it is zoned industrial. If the area is not zoned industrial. the <br />operator will need to submit the dimensions of all structures with in the <br />35 acre permit area, the information should also include the material these <br />structures are constructed from. <br />Once we receive the information, the Division will calculate the <br />appropriate financial warranty the will be needed to demolish these <br />structures and reclaim the site to RANGE LAND, as was approved in the <br />alternate Post Mining Land Use. The existing warranty of $18,450.00 is <br />adequate to cover the cost of recalamtion of the areas disturbed by the <br />mining operation. However, if structures demolition is considered, the <br />warranty could be inadequate. At this time the Division request the <br />operator to provide from the County to show that the permit area is zoned <br />Industrial has passed with out receiving the requested information. or <br />provide the dimensions of the structures so the financial warranty will be <br />adjusted. The requested information will need to be submitted to the <br />Division no later than 11/30/O5.Permit sign and boundary markers were <br />properly posted. The fact that the warranty might be inadequate to cover <br />the cost of recalamtion will not be sited as a Possible Problem at this <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.