INSPEC43900

• Permit No: M1977193
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 11/27/1996
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(Page 2)
MINE ID f OR PROSPECTING ID f K-77-193
-~ INSPECTION DATE 11127{96 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS TAS
OBSERVATIONS
1. A site inspection was made at the T.H.E. Aggregate Source quarry in order to evaluate
technical and administrative aspects of the proposed permit amendment recently submitted by
T.H.E. The weather at the quarry was sunny and relatively dry. There were only traces of
snow on the ground. The road conditions in the surrounding area were snow covered, icy, and
treacherous.
2. Mr. Edward Tezak was present during the inspection. This inspector and Mr. Tezak
discussed the 20 issues listed in the Division's November 8, 1996 adequacy letter. Mr. Tezak
felt confident that all issues listed could be resolved by the January 22-23, 1996 Board
Meeting. This inspector also discussed with Mr. Tezak the timeframea Bind details of the
permit amendment process ae well as those issues believed to be critical to the approval or
denial of the amendment application.
3. T.H.E. has proposed the expansion of the current quarry operation from 30 to 100
permitted acres. There will be approximately 35 additional acres attributed to enlargement
of the active highwall area, 30 additional acres attributed to atormwater management, and 5
additional acres attributed to construction of a new haul road. The new haul road will be
used to divert a large volume of truck traffic to and from the quarry currently directed
along Tunnel Drive.
4. A significant issue of previous inspections conducted in 1996 by Jim Stevens of the
Division was the identification of the 30 acre permit boundary and the statue of several
mining related facilities adjacent or outside of the current boundary. Harkere were
identified by this inspector to verify that all current disturbance is located within the 30
acre boundary. Also, Mr. Tezak identified additional boundary markers that delineate the 100
acre boundary. A shop and equipment storage yard has been constructed in tie location of the
previous Rencher Concrete Block Building. Mr. Tezak currently owns the property and new
facility and indicated that these facilities are not to be included in the 100 permitted
acres. These structures are within 200 feet of the affected land boundary; however, Mr.
Tezak explained that he owns the companies responsible for both the mining operation and the
shop and equipment storage yard and did not feel that compliance with Rule 6.3.12 pertaining
to permanent man made structures, would be a problem. All other areas ~~veationed by Mr.
Stevens on previous inspections were verified to be either within the existing permit
boundary or will be included within the proposed 100 acre permit boundary.
5. Activity at the quarry during the inspection was slow. There was no apparent duet
problem at the processing facility or active highwall area.
6. The location of all existing and proposed atormwater management plan structures was
inspected. It was apparent to both Hr. Tezak and this inspector that construction of the
diversion channel leading from the processing area to the collection ponds to the northeast
will be quite involved and will require good construction practices in ord,=_r to achieve the
results presented in the stormwater plan. Further, Mr. Tezak agreed t:hat a aeries of
culverts or other structural devices will be necessary to manage and control etormwater
runoff along the existing haul road. The operator had not completed construction of
collection ponds 2, 3, and 4 at the time of inspection. Pond 2 was excavated but did not
have an emergency spillway. Pond 3 may need to be enlarged to design specifications and also
did not have an emergency spillway. Pond 4 was not yet excavated. Pond 1 :and the diversion
channel leading to Ponds 5-7 was not constructed. Ponds 5-7 were not yet excavated ae they
are currently outside of the permit area.
7. Until Pond 1 and the diversion channel are completed, the potential exists for large
stormwater flows along the existing haul road and onto Tunnel Drive due tc• runoff from the
upland watershed. Uncontrolled stormwater flows from the quarry across Tunnel Drive and onto
the Smith property along Tunnel Drive has been and continues to be a permitting concern.
Please see attached letter dated November 22, 1996 from Phillip and Colita :imith. it ie the
Division's understanding that the operator already has a etormwater management plan for the
existing 30 permitted acres approved by the Colorado Department of Healt:~, Water quality
Control Division. However, the storage capacity provided by sediment ponds 2 and 3 does not