My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC03434
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC03434
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:58:12 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:10:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1985023
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
DMG MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
3/21/1995
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.
/
4
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
<br />NINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID <br />INSPECTION DATE 03/21/95 <br />(Page 2) , <br />M-85-023 <br />This partial inspection was performed by the Division <br />land adjacent to the permit area. The permittee had <br />in February, giving verbal information concerning <br />equipment from adjoining BLM land. The permittee was <br />inspected, though no firm date was made. The permitte <br />of the site, during this inspection. <br />INSPEC$OR'S INITIALS RCO <br />to follow up the on oing cleanup of the <br />contacted this ins ctor by telephone <br />removal of the 1 et of the offeite <br />informed then tha the site would be <br />e was not present, nor was the operator <br />The above-mentioned offeite equipment, consisting of the various compo sots of an asphalt <br />batch plant, were observed during the inspection. Said equipment was ind ed removed from the <br />adjacent BLM property. The property line was still clearly marked. This quipment was moved <br />from BLM land to abate a BLM trespass issue, and begin to satisfy a Hin d Land Reclamation <br />Board order. The two remaining mining-related disturbances on BLM land i the use of a short <br />length of road to gain access to the hilltop pit, and the use of an ab ve ground electric <br />pole and transformer and underground cable across BLM land. (Ie the a not an electric <br />utility easement crossing the land7) <br />Subsequent conversation with Craig Blacketter (BLM) reveals that BLM ie w fling to allow such <br />use, if the site will continue to be operated and if the operator will pply for that use. <br />Since the road and present electric supply will continue to be used un it the end of this <br />operation, their removal may have to be bonded for, if the utili y company is not <br />responsibility for retrieving them. The operator should initially ensure hat right-of-entry <br />for these areas on BLM property is obtained, and that they are added to the permit area. <br />The second item of importance observed during this inspection was the surf <br />the site, passing through it, and leaving it. The water was coming fr <br />land. Though the watershed draining into this area is 150 acres or lees <br />permeable soil ie frozen, and surface drainage did occur. Immediately <br />permit area, the water flows through a dirt-surfaced area where th <br />recyclable asphalt material had been stockpiled. (The inspection repo: <br />that this material had been removed.) Upon entering the permit area the <br />over a surface which is mostly smooth and asphalt paved, without encoun <br />control structure or permeable surface. The water leaves the permit ar <br />the office/scalehouee, passes under the county road, and was seen to <br />pastureland to the east. The water was carrying sediment which it hac <br />before entering the permit area. The water was flowing at a rate estim <br />sample was collected. The operator stated during a meeting with this in <br />that this site does have a CDOH Stormwater Management Permit (SWMP). <br />Ina subsequent telephone conversation regarding the existing stormwatern <br />permittee indicated that the SWMP plan did not include structures for co <br />runoff in that portion of the permit area. This inspector also asked <br />about the possibility of placing a type of drainage structure on their pr <br />the permit area. The BLM ie reluctant to install one, mainly due to d. <br />breach or washout occurring if such a structure were filled. If stoc] <br />could occur within the low area where drainage ie channeled, the op <br />consider installing diversion ditches there, to carry runoff water awa• <br />contact with product stockpiles. The inspection topic of "etormwater m <br />page 1) is not noted ae a problem. A copy of this report, however, i~ <br />Water Quality Control Division, for their information. Because moat <br />sediment appears to originate offeite, the topic of "hydrologic balance <br />problem to be addressed in this report. <br />ice runoff entering <br />n the adjacent BLM <br />the normally very <br />afore entering the <br />recently removed <br />of 10/5/94 notes <br />runoff water flows <br />eying any drainage <br />a via a drain near <br />flow out over the <br />largely picked up <br />tad at 20 gpm. No <br />pector on 7/12/94, <br />nagement plan, the <br />:rol of etormwater <br />Blacketter (BLM) <br />?arty, upstream of <br />Eger from possible <br />~iling of material <br />•ator may want to <br />from any possible <br />~agement plan" (on <br />being sent to the <br />if not all, the <br />is not noted ae a <br />No other aspects of the cleanup or abatement of the existing violation y~ere inspected. <br />The permittee mentioned that the operator (Columbine Paving) may soon take over the permittee <br />statue for this site. The permittee requested a "Transfer of Operat r" form, which is <br />included with this mailing. <br />There were no problems noted during this inspection. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.