_INSPECTION - C1981014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 20, 2013 C-1981-014/Southfield Mine RDZ Inspection Topic Summary NOTE: Y=Inspected N=Not Inspected R=Comments Noted V=Violation Issued NA=Not Applicable N -Air Resource Protection R -Roads N -Availability of Records R -Reclamation Success N -Backfill &Grading N -Revegetation NA -Excess Spoil and Dev.Waste N - Subsidence NA -Explosives N - Slides and Other Damage N -Fish &Wildlife R - Support Facilities On-site R -Hydrologic Balance N - Signs and Markers N -Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan R - Support Facilities Not On-site N -Other NA - Special Categories Of Mining R -Processing Waste R -Topsoil COMMENTS A partial inspection was conducted by Rob Zuber of DRMS on December 20, 2013. The weather was cool and cloudy. The ground was somewhat muddy with a few patches of snow. There was no EFCI representative present during the inspection at the mine site or the loadout. HYDROLOGIC BALANCE -Rule 4.05 Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4.05.5, 4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7, 4.05.10; Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Drainage—Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: The two ponds at the mine site, Pond 4 and Pond 5,were holding frozen water. Neither of these ponds was discharging. At the loadout,ponds L-1 and L-2 were dry at the time of the inspection. No major problems were found with embankments, flumes, or spillways. The Pond L-1 primary spillway contains significant sediment at the downstream end, and should be cleaned out. The erosion control BMPs near the gravel parking lot in the portal area appear to be functioning and the hillside appears stable. The ditch along the southeast side of the Coal Refuse Stockpile (aka RDA)has recently been cleared of sediment. No problems were seen with ditches or with the California Drain Pan at the northwest corner of the RDA. The portion of Newlin Creek where a landowner has indicated that there is a losing reach due to subsidence was inspected for cracks or other indications of mining impacts. No cracks were seen in the area flagged by the landowner(approximately 200 feet upstream and approximately 200 feet downstream) or in the reach between the flagging and the culvert to the south. There was not enough runoff from recent snow storms for the inspector to look for losses in the creek based on soil moisture observations. Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 4 Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 Page 2 of 8