My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC08254
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC08254
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:08:19 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:35:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
Inspection Report
Inspection Date
3/25/2003
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
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations <br />made during the inspection, Comments m Section IV describe any enforcement actions <br />taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement oction. <br />Items of concern from earlier Inspections include: A missing permit boundary sign <br />where Piikin County Road 1 enters the permit area from the west. <br />Sians and Markers There was no mine and permit identification sign at the entrance <br />to the permit area, from the west, on Piikin County Road 1. <br />Hydrologic Balance There were mine water discharges from the outlet pipes at the <br />head of the baffle half-pipe of Treatment Pond 1 from both Portal 1 and Portal 3. <br />Portal 3 flow was measured as 1 gallon per 17 seconds (0.008 cubic feet per second). <br />Fiow from the combined discharges from Treatment Pond 2, at the Colorado Permit <br />Discharge System discharge point 001 B, was 5 gallons per 14 seconds (0,048 cubic <br />feet per second). There was still snow cover over north-facing areas of the permit, but <br />the Portal 3, facilities, ponds, and coal mine waste pile areas were clear of snow. <br />There was evidence of some overland drainage flow. but none was noticed during <br />the Inspection. There was no indication of flow in perimeter or collection ditches. <br />There was about o foot of water in Pond P-9, but none in the Waste Area Pond. The <br />Long Pond and the two treatment pond were operating properly. These ponds were <br />free of ice and snow. Ground surfaces were wet. <br />Reveaetotion was starting to green up in areas free of snow. Mules were groz(ng the <br />terrace between the road and the lower river terrace at the loadout site. <br />The was no vegetative cover over the <br />disturbed North Thompson Creek bank area <br />associated with removol of the down-stream <br />water monitoring flume base. No erosion was <br />evident on this rocky and sandy area, but <br />the area is subJect to erosion from rain (see <br />picture). A recommendation is made to take <br />action to prevent sediment from being <br />washed Info the creek from this small area of <br />disturbance (seed and mulch, and set straw <br />bales or other alternatives to sediment <br />control basins or ponds, at the high-water <br />elevation of the creek bank). <br />Reclamation Success Reclamation at the site has been successful. There was no <br />indication of any item that would bear adversely on the current Phase III bond <br />release action of this permit <br />C-Bt •025, Page _3_ of _4_ Pages, (date) _27 Mar 03_, (initials) .v <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.