My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC20169
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC20169
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:21:02 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:33:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2002003
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
5/11/2006
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DMG cmr
To
Joe Dorris for Georgia Rubeck
Inspection Date
5/2/2006
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.
/
6
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
(Page 3y <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-2002.003 <br />INSPECTION DATE'. 5/212003 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS CMR <br />months additional erosion control will be required (Forest Service dryllower elevation seed mlx <br />suggested). <br />• While the Operator has water rights to the onsite spring, and placer type mining is included in the mine <br />operalron plan. Mr. Dorris indicated that there would be limited or not use of the water For gem <br />processing. <br />• The drainage below the spring likely contains wetlands, and mining disturbance below the spring should <br />be avoided without first determming their presence and attaining a Corps of Engineers 404 permit if <br />necessary. <br />• There was one small area were stormwater collected (Mineral Rules and Regulations 3.1.6(1)). Mr. <br />Dorris indicated that he would fill in this area. <br />• if there would be any offsite vows of stormwater the need for stormwater runoff controls were discussed <br />(Mineral Rules and Regulations 3.1.6(1)). This included the use of Besl Management Practices (13MPs) <br />such as hay bales and silt fences. Mr. Dorris indicated that there is not currently any offsite movement <br />of stormwater. <br />• There was a discussion between all three people present that coordrnation between the Operator, the <br />Forest Service, and the Division was very advantageous, and additional efforts were needed (Forest <br />Service/Division MOU. September 1981). <br />• After review of the permit tiles, it was noted that there was not any maps provided by the anginal <br />applicant. The Drvlsion requests copies of any operation or reclamation maps produced as part of the <br />succession of operations or Forest service Plan of Operation processes (Mineral Rules and Regulations <br />6.3.5). <br />The problems, corrective actions. and correction by dates listed below are attached to the permit regardless <br />of the operator, and therefore can be addressed by either operator. <br />The succession of operator and transfer of permit will be approved pending the submission of a new <br />performance warranty and with a new financial warranty o/$8,447.00 The cost estimate is included for your <br />review. Thls concluded the inspection <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.