My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35312
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35312
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:55 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:34:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/7/1993
Doc Name
MINE-SITE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT
Violation No.
CV1993025
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.
/
7
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
Edna 4/93 page 5 <br />P&M has elected to use check dams as part of the West Ridge hydrologic <br />reconstn:rtion plan. These check dams are being placed in drainages where <br />erosion has been a problem in the past. I believe it was stated that eleven had <br />been constructed so far. The design for these check dams includes across- <br />section of the structures. The cross-section shows an earthen embankment as a <br />core with ten inches of rock over the top. P&M had proposed this concept about <br />two or three years ago on it's Indian lands mine, the McKinley Mine. Initially OSM <br />agreed with the concept, then Western Support Center and Albuquerque Field <br />Office (AFO) representatives reviewed the proposal and decided that the structures <br />would also have to meet the Federal impoundment regulations. The structures are <br />designed to impound water rather than be porous. P&M was made aware of <br />OSMs decision and elected not to construct the check dams. I am not issuing a <br />TDN on this condition since the structures were snow-covered and I could not tell if <br />water was being impounded. AFO will continue to review this situation during the <br />regular oversight process. <br />P&M questioned their liability if they reclaimed the landfill for Routt county. We <br />could not give them a complete answer, but stressed that P&M should proceed <br />very carefully on this. One of the ideas stated was that the road would be <br />relocated to the edge of the hill and over the reclaimed landfill. Since this is a <br />permitted road, P&M would have to permit this new location. I do not know what <br />the implications would be of permitting an area that was once a landfill if problems <br />such as ground water contamination, etc., occur from this area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.