Laserfiche WebLink
May 28, 2015 C-1981-014/Southfield Mine RDZ <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y=Inspected N=Not Inspected R=Comments Noted V=Violation Issued NA Not Applicable <br />N - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Availability of Records <br />N - Backfill & Grading <br />NA - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />NA - Explosives <br />N - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />Y - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />R -Other <br />N - Processing Waste <br />R - Roads <br />N - Reclamation Success <br />R - Revegetation <br />N - Subsidence <br />N - Slides and Other Damage <br />N - Support Facilities On-site <br />N - Signs and Markers <br />R - Support Facilities Not On-site <br />NA - Special Categories Of Mining <br />R - Topsoil <br />COMMENTS <br />A partial inspection was conducted by Rob Zuber of DRMS on May 28, 2015. The weather was partly cloudy. <br />The ground was muddy. <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 />The two ponds at the mine site, Pond 4 and Pond 5, were holding significant amounts of water, but these <br />levels were three or more feet below the tops of primary spillways. Neither of these ponds was discharging. No <br />major problems were found with embankments, flumes, or spillways. <br />The ditches that divert water around the RDA and the California crossing were found to be in good shape. No <br />erosion or other problems were seen in or along the Magpie Diversion. <br />At the northwest corner of the truck tunnel, wattles require maintenance. <br />MW -NW was inspected. Under the cap, there is a Division of Water Resources notice that diversion is prohibited <br />and a tag (number 1205400). The area south of this well where EFCI proposes a replacement well (TR -46) is <br />relatively flat and has sparse juniper trees. <br />Newlin Creek had significant flow. It was walked below, above, and at the location where Dr. Corley <br />(landowner) has suggested that subsidence has caused this to be a losing reach. Above this point, the width of the <br />flow was approximately six feet, depth (at deepest point) approximately one foot, and velocity approximately 3 <br />ft/s. Below this point, the width of the flow was approximately eight to ten feet, depth (at deepest point) <br />approximately one-half to one foot, and velocity approximately 3 ft/s. There appears to be no diminution of flow <br />through this reach of the creek. <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 8 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 <br />Page 2 of 13 <br />