ENFORCE25551

• Permit No: C1981014
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 10/7/1993
• Doc Name: ISSUES TO CONSIDER By Assessment Officer
• From: DMG
• To: SHAWN SMITH
• Violation No.: CV1993133
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

..
M I II III II III IIII IIII
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1.113 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver,CO 80203
Phone: [phone]
fqX: [phone]
October 7, 1993
Attn: Assessment Officer
OF'~~[O
`~' b
` ~ O
ue /
~ rB 16 ~
Foy Romer
Governor
Michael B Long
Division Director
TO: File ' ~
FM: Shawn Smithy
Re: NOV C-93-13 Recommendation: Issues to Consider
Southfield Mine (C-81-014)
Dear Assessment Officer:
NOV C-93-133 was issued for failure to pass disturbed area drainage
through a sedimentation pond, a series of sedimentation ponds or a
treatment facility.
Seriousness: The NOV pertains to two areas; the explosives bunker
on the mine site and an area measuring 97 feet x 16 feet on the
loadout premises near the eastern sediment pond.
The explosives bunker area has been subject to varying degrees of
erosion this summer, due to surface runoff from slopes above and to
drainage from an adjacent mine's culvert outfall. The surface
drainage has eroded the slope around the bunkers into several
rills, and downcut a ditch at the entrance, exposing coal refuse
(possibly pre-law). The explosives area is located on the old
Vento mine property which has several areas of pre-law disturbance.
Therefore, erosion of this unstable area is significant and due to
the composition of the soil cover, can erode faster than other
areas. It is visually obvious that sediment has been transported
off site due to the rilling and depositional fan found at the
outfall of the Newlin Creek clean water diversion ditch culvert
which is on the SAE area.
Regarding the loadout area, it appears that the berm responsible
for directing the surface flow downslope from the loadout stockpile
area to the sediment pond had been breached. Doter tracks in the
area suggested recent vehicular activity by someone other than the
operator had breached the berm. Two weeks prior to this
inspection, the loadout had been checked and the surface water
appeared to be contained. Last state complete inspection indicated
the berm was stable and functioning in its intended use.
I recommend that the seriousness of this violation be moderate.