Laserfiche WebLink
September 9, 2014 C- 1996 - 084 /Lorencito Canyon Mine LDS <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y= Inspected N =Not Inspected R= Comments Noted V= Violation Issued NA Not Applicable <br />NA - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Availability of Records <br />NA - Backfill & Grading <br />R - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />NA - Explosives <br />Y - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />R - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />N -Other <br />NA - Processing Waste <br />Y - Roads <br />Y - Reclamation Success <br />R - Revegetation <br />NA - Subsidence <br />R - Slides and Other Damage <br />NA - Support Facilities On -site <br />Y -Signs and Markers <br />Y - Support Facilities Not On -site <br />Y - Special Categories Of Mining <br />Y -Topsoil <br />COMMENTS <br />This was a partial inspection by Leigh Simmons of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, <br />(the Division). The weather was fine and dry. One permitting action is in progress, it is detailed under the heading <br />GENERAL MINE PLAN COMPLIANCE. For a more complete description of the state of New Elk Coal <br />Company refer to the inspection report for the New Elk mine. <br />EXCESS SPOIL and DEVELOPMENT WASTE — Rule 4.09 <br />Placement; Drainage Control; Surface Stabilization: <br />Fills 7, 8 and 9 appeared to be stable. There were no signs of erosion or drainage problems on the terraces <br />and faces of the fills. <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 <br />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; <br />Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; <br />Drainage — Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br />Culvert C1 had been cleaned. <br />Pond 9 (913) was holding water but not discharging. Repairs had been made to the area around culvert <br />C19. Bales around the pond had been replaced and sediment traps cleaned. Above pond 9, a large contour ditch <br />(D1) had been cleaned and re- shaped. <br />The ditch along the main road through the permit area was also in the process of being cleaned. <br />Pond 8 was discharging by drips. Four sets of weep -holes were exposed, the lower two of which were blocked by <br />twigs and debris. Exhibit 15 of the Permit Application Packet specifies six sets of weep -holes on the pond 8 <br />primary riser; presumably the lowest two were also blocked. The debris should be cleared from the primary <br />riser to allow the pond to function as designed. <br />Five sets of weep -holes were exposed at pond 5. Mr Massarotti reported that the riser had been blocked <br />with similar debris as that seen in pond 8. The pond still held a little water, but below the level of the riser. <br />No recent work had taken place at pond 6, but the reseeded areas around the pond were in good shape. The <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 2 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 <br />Page 2 of 17 <br />