My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-13_INSPECTION - M1978249
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1978249
>
2013-03-13_INSPECTION - M1978249
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:14:53 PM
Creation date
3/28/2013 4:01:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978249
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
3/13/2013
Doc Name
INSPECTION REPORT
From
DRMS
To
OPERATOR
Inspection Date
2/28/2013
Email Name
BMK
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
OBSERVATIONS <br />PERMIT #: M- 1978 -249 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: BMK <br />INSPECTION DATE: February 28, 2013 <br />1) The Division conducted an inspection of the site in a response to a letter received from the land owner Mr. <br />Kokes. On February 7, 2013, the Division received a letter from Mr. Kokes requesting a site visit to verify <br />compliance of the approved reclamation plan. <br />2) In the letter, Mr. Kokes felt the operator was importing inert fill such as recycled asphalt and concrete from their <br />highway project and stockpiling it in the permit area. He thought it was going to be used to reclaim the site. He <br />also stated that the lease agreement for the site with the county will expire in September 2013. In the letter he <br />also requested to accompany the Division during the site visit. The Division contacted the operator and <br />requested their permission to allow the land owner to be present during the inspection. The operator granted <br />the request and Mr. Kokes was present during the inspection. <br />3) There was indeed some recycled asphalt and a small amount of fragmented concrete noted stockpiled along the <br />NE side of the pit floor. However, none of this material was used in the reclamation of the site. Normally <br />counties bring in to a permitted site a small amount of recycled material from their road maintenance operation <br />and stockpile it in an already affected area. The material is normally used in another road project. Mr. Chad <br />Wright of Logan county present during the inspection verified that none of the material noted will be used in <br />reclamation of the site. The entire site was driven and inspected. The operator has been grading the slopes ( not <br />final) as soon as the mining in the area is completed and to avoid going over the permit area. The slopes along <br />the south east side of the permit have been graded to an approximate slope of 3:1. Along the North and east <br />side, the slopes approximate 2:1. This is not the final post mining pit slopes; once the final grading is completed <br />the slopes will be graded to average slope of 3:1 or gentler. Mr. Kokes thought the county was conducting final <br />reclamation and assumed the slopes were going to be left as noted during the inspectiion. Mr. Wright of Logan <br />County explained the fact that this was just a grading plan during the mining phase to make sure his operators <br />do not go over the affected permit boundary. <br />4) After the inspection, both Mr. Kokes and the Division agreed, there was no violation noted during this <br />inspection. The Division however informed both Mr. Kokes and the county to notify the Division in writing, if the <br />lease agreement is not renewed in September, 2013. If such is the case, the operator will need to commence <br />reclamation of the site and the right access the prperty to complete the reclamation must be granted. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.