2015-11-17_INSPECTION - C1981014

Home Browse Search

November 11, 2015 C-1981-014/Southfield Mine RDZ Within the truck tunnel, there was no sign of petroleum products or other pollutants (based on visual perception and smell). The developed spring within the Magpie Creek Diversion was inspected. Flow could be seen coming out of the ground (when the manhole cover was lifted), and flow was seen at the end of the pipe at the big culvert where this diversion leaves the Southfield Mine permit area. It is unclear at this time if it is necessary for this structure to be removed. Dr. Corley would like to have the water tested, and, if the water does not meet agricultural standards, the structure should be removed. The entirety of the Magpie Creek Diversion was inspected, including riprap armoring and riprap check structures. No erosion, large bare spots, or other problems were seen within the channel or on the embankment. The two permanent ponds at the mine site, Pond 4 and Pond 5, were dry and not discharging. No major problems were found with embankments, flumes, or spillways. The dewatering gates are in place. These two ponds are part of the Phase I application (in addition to Phases II and III). At the RDA, no problems were seen with the ditches or the California crossing. The following wells and boreholes were inspected (order reflects chronological order of inspection), and all appeared to be sealed and reclaimed: SR22A, Manley 3 well, SF87-06, Liberty 2 well, MW -10 well, Vento 2 well, SR -46, MW -8 well, SF87-07, and Zenith 2 well. Also, MW -NW well was inspected and has been sealed; this is not relevant to SL -03. At each of these seven wells and four boreholes, there is a marker (metal conduit standing about two feet above the ground), the map location appears accurate, and there is obvious access for equipment. ROADS — Rule 4.03 Construction 4.03.1(3)/4.03.2(3) Drainage 4.03.1(4)/4.03.2(4) Surfacing and Maintenance4.03.1(5) and (6)/4.03.2(5) and (6) Reclamation 4.03.1(7)/4.03.2(7): The inspection entailed a look at the sediment on County Road 92 (CR92) near the main gate into the Southfield Mine. This was not part of the SL -03 inspection, and this area is not within the Southfield Permit Boundary. This area is a major concern of Jack Robeda, Las Cruces, and the Corley family. A large amount of sediment has been deposited on the road surface above the gate and below the gate. Also, increased flows have eroded the road surface and caused a gully beside the road. Finally, the roadside ditch south of the gate exhibits erosion, poor soil, and some coal on the bank. Based on this inspection and prior inspections, DRMS acknowledges that a significant amount of sediment is being transported to CR92. The source of this sediment appears to be four sources: the GEC Mine, nearby undisturbed areas, nearby areas disturbed by historical mining, and the road (and eroding side ditch) itself. It is clear to DRMS that the first three sources are not an issue for the Southfield Mine; all of these sources are not the responsibility of EFCI. The final source, however, could be EFCI responsibility if it can be shown that Dorchester actions led to an unstable road and ditch. DRMS continues to research this issue to determine if there is substantial evidence that Dorchester actions caused the unstable road. Two things are clear to all parties: 1) the road is in very poor condition near the gate and north of the gate toward CR 15, and 2) the county road department Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 4 Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 Page 3 of 36