Laserfiche WebLink
September 26, 2011 C -1981 -044 /Williams Fork Mines JRS <br /> <br /> <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 2 <br />Number of Compl ete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 <br /> <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y =Inspected N =Not Insp ected R =Comments Noted V =Violation Issued NA =Not Applicable <br />N - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Availability of Records <br />R - Backfill & Grading <br />N - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />N - Explosives <br />N - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />N - Gen. Complian ce With Mine Plan <br />R - Other <br />N - Processing Waste <br /> <br />R - Roads <br />R - Reclamation Success <br />N - Revegetation <br />N - Subsidence <br />N - Slides and Other Damage <br />R - Support Facilities On -site <br />N - Signs and Markers <br />N - Support Facilities Not On -site <br />N - Special C ategories Of Mining <br />N - Topsoil <br /> <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />This was an aerial inspection of the Williams Fork Mines conducted by Jim Stark of the Colorado Di vision of <br />reclamation, Mining and Safety. The photographs were taken on the morning of 26 September 2011 by Harry <br />Ranney, also with the Division. The mine is currently idle and has not operated since 1995. The operator has <br />performed some re clamation activities in the last few years. The weather was clear and the ground was dry at the <br />time of the inspection. <br /> <br />BACKFILL and GRADING – Rule 4.14 Contemporaneous Reclamation 4.14.1; Approximate Original Contour <br />4.14.2; Highwall Elimination 4.14.1(2)(f); Steep Slopes 4.14.2, 4.27; Handling of Acid and Toxic Materials <br />4.14 .3; Stabilization of Rills and Gullies 4.14.6: <br />- The backfilled and regraded Mine No. 4 portal area appeared to be stable at the time of the inspection. The area <br />was well vegetated and no erosional problems were noted. <br />- The backfilled and regraded Wi lliams Fork Strip Pit was stable at the time of the inspection. The area was well <br />vegetated. There was no sign of any cracking, slumping or settling in the backfill and no erosional problems were <br />noted. <br /> <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4.05.5, <br />4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7, 4.05.10; Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water <br />Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Drainage – Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; <br />I mpoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br />- Sediment Pond 5A -P1 was dry at the time of the inspection. The pond embankment was well vegetated and <br />stable and no erosional problems were noted. The series of ditches flowing into pond 5A -P1 also appeared to be <br />stable, with no erosional problems noted. <br />- The wastewater treatment pond was dry at the time of the inspection. The pond embankment was well vegetated <br />and stable and no erosion problems were noted. According to the quarterly pond ins pection reports, this pond and <br />wastewater treatment facility has been decommissioned. <br />