Laserfiche WebLink
September 23, 2015 C-1996-084/Lorencito Canyon Mine RDZ <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 />Y - 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 />Y - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />N - Other <br />NA - Processing Waste <br />R - 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 complete inspection by Rob Zuber of the Colorado Division for Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />(Division). The weather was clear, and the ground was dry. Vince Massarotti accompanied the inspector in the <br />field. Louis Head assisted with the records check in the office. <br />EXCESS SPOIL and DEVELOPMENT WASTE — Rule 4.09 <br />Placement; Drainage Control; Surface Stabilization: <br />Fills 7 and 8 and the area that would have been Fill 6 were inspected; all were in good condition. There <br />were no signs of instability or erosion on the faces or with the side drains; the benches and slopes appeared to be <br />well vegetated. <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 following ponds were inspected: 5, 6, 9, and 9A. Three of the ponds (all but Pond 5) were holding <br />turbid water; none were discharging. Their embankments and spillways were in good condition. Other comments <br />on these four ponds: <br />At Pond 9A, NECC plans to replace straw bales with rock. At the main inlet to 9A, the rock is currently stable, <br />except at the lower end. <br />Pond 9 has never been cleaned per Vince Massarotti. Access is difficult. <br />At the area where pond cleanings are placed, no problems were detected. On the slope above this, some rills <br />require repair, and some wattles require repositioning (due to disturbance by elk apparently). <br />Rills above Fill 7 need to be monitored. Erosion BMPs at Fill 6 appear to be working well. <br />The disturbed area in the Pond 5 watershed is not eligible to be an SAE in its current state. <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 3 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: I <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />