My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC13815
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC13815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:15:20 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:02:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983033
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
NOTICE OF INSPECTION AND INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
5/18/1984
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
_~ . <br /> <br />INSPECTION REPORT - PAGE 2 <br />FILE N0. 83-33 <br />DATE: May 18, 1984 <br />OBSERVATIONS OF IMPORTANCE: <br />1. In the April 10, 1984 inspection report, a problem was noted regarding <br />topsoil salvage. The operator was to reply to the problem by <br />May 15, 1984 or it would be considered by the Board. No written reply <br />has been received by the Division to date. During the May 18, 1984 <br />inspection, it was again observed that no topsoil was being salvaged. <br />The possible violation is being scheduled to be heard by the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board on June 26-27, 1984. <br />2. I also observed that mining was occurring outside of the permitted area, <br />along the northeast permit boundary. Exhibit D-1, the mining plan map, <br />shows that the permit boundary is to the south of the small unnamed <br />drainage for approximately 250 feet. However, mining operations are <br />currently in the drainage and extend approximately 50 feet to the north <br />of the centerline of the stream. The Division is concerned about <br />environmental impacts to this intermittent stream especially in light of <br />the fact that the permit states that there will be no direct affects to <br />surface water by this operation. <br />3. A pond had been created upstream of the mining operation in the <br />intermittent stream bed to prevent flow into the mining area. The <br />difference in elevation between the pond and the mine floor was <br />approximately 80 feet. How does the operator plan to reclaim this? <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />1. Provide a response to the Mined Land Reclamation Board providing <br />mitigative measures for non-salvage of topsoil. <br />2. Amend the existing permit to include all disturbed areas within the <br />permit area. The amendment must include all maps and exhibits required <br />by Rule 2. <br />3. Amend the existing permit and reclamation plan to specifically address <br />impacts to the unnamed drainage and provide a reclamation plan which <br />includes the following: <br />a. Channel dimensions both upstream and downstream of the area to be <br />disturbed. <br />b. Reclaimed channel dimensions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.