INSPEC13571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1976-032 INSPECTION DATE 5112/06 OBSERVATIONS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112c permits. The operator was contacted about the scheduled inspection. The operator's representative named on page one was present during the inspection. The site was active at the time of the inspection. The site is identified by the required permit ID sign, posted along the county road, near the bridge at the east end of the site. Most of the permit area boundary was adequately marked, by roadways, fencelines, and rivers. All activities are inside the permit area boundary. Since the site is used for the stockpiling and processing of imported material, and no excavation is occurring at the site, the disturbed area is not increasing. There are a couple locations where the boundary is notwell marked, though no activities appear to be encroaching past the boundary. This topic is not noted as a problem, but the operator should locate all the boundary and ensure that it is clearly marked. The office trailer, and fuel and oil storage facilities were installed according to the specifications approved in the technical revisions TR-1, TR-2 and TR-3. They are being well maintained and are of adequate capacity. However, there is a modular storage buildino on skids near the waste oil storage location that contains new oil (in unopened cases buckets and barrels), and the building does not have the necessary containment for these fluids. This was discussed with the operator, who stated that he would add the needed containment walls or lined berms under and around the structure. There was no spilled or leaked fluid noted inside or outside the building. This is noted as a problem on page one. The corrective action will be for the The northeast part of the permit area contains a segment of the San Miguel River, specifically the old placer gravel piles. These were added to the permit through the amendment AM-1 in 1986. The operator is not going to mine these gravels or otherwise disturb the river there. The file is unclear whether that portion of the river was released from the permit 5 years ago. If better information can be found (by the operatoror this office) documenting the release of this area, it should be forwarded to the other party. The southern part of the permit area adjoins the confluence at the South Fork and a low alluvial area north of the rivers. This is land managed by the US Forest Service, on which the operator was found in trespass several years ago and prevented from further mining. The land is delineated by a buck and pole fence along the property line. Extensive reclamation occurred there, and the area no longer shows signs of unreclaimed mining disturbance. It has been filled, shaped, topsoiled and seeded. Trees have been planted and the river channel has been stabilized. No items belonging to the operator are on that area. This area was removed from the DMG permit several years ago. The outslope of the imported fill area, lying immediately north of the USFS fenceline mentioned above, is very close to the USFS area (which is now outside the permit). Rolling and eroded material has descended the slope, but has not passed the fence, though there is great potential for new material to pass outside the fence. This would be "offsite damage" and would be treated as a possible violation, to be heard by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. There is no problem noted at this time, but the operator is strongly encouraged to pull back the materials at the base of the slope, pull up the slope materials to a gentler gradient, and install an interim structure (such as a line ofjersey barriers) adequate to stop eroded or sloughing material from exceeding the boundary fence. The land surface below the dump slope dips toward the USFS area beyond the fence. Boundary protection measures should also include either a silt fence to stop sediment while still allowing drainage, or a diversion ditch keeping all sediment-laden drainage onsite until the runoff reaches a sediment control structure farther west, The jersey barriers (or other suitable structure) and the sediment control measures will be checked at the next inspection. The portion of the permit that adjoins the north bank of the river, at the south and southwest boundary, is where much of the runoff from the stockpile and processing areas reports to. There are several points where such runoff is concentrated, and it naturally carries sediment. There is a lack of sediment control structures in several places along the lower edge of the pad areas, where sediment transport to surface waters appears possible. The operator stated that a stormwater management permit (SWMP) had been issued by the CDPHE -WOOD. Sedimentation was not observed during the inspection. but the lack of sediment control berms (or other suitable structures) maybe in out of compliance with the operator's SWMP. This is noted as a problem in this report. The corrective action will be for the operator to install the necessary sediment and runoff control structures (in conformance with the SWMP. as applicable) by the correction date. See the last page of this report.