Laserfiche WebLink
iiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiii <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparlmenl of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80'_03 <br />Phone: (3031 ft66 3567 <br />FA%: (3071 832-81(16 <br />DATE: June 2, 1995 <br />TO: NOV File C-95-014 <br />FROM: Erica Crosby <br />RE: Seneca II Mine (C-SO-005) <br />NOV C-95-014 <br />~~~ <br />DEPAR7"MEM" OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governur <br />James 5. Lochhead <br />E~ecwive Dveclor <br />Michael B Lung <br />Drvaion Director <br />On May 19, 1995, NOV C-95-014 was issued to the Seneca II mine for <br />failure to pass surface drainage from disturbed area through a <br />sediment pond or treatment facility before leaving the permit area, <br />failure to prevent additional contributions of sediment to stream <br />flow, failure to retain sediment within the disturbed area, failure <br />to prevent disturbing the smallest practicable area at any one <br />given time during the mining operation through backfilling and <br />grading and failure to salvage topsoil prior to disturbance. The <br />location of the violation was just south of the Auger E mining area <br />(see attached map). <br />In the field, it was noted that an area roughly 325'W. * 175'L. was <br />disturbed outside the approved disturbance boundary. Material was <br />pushed down an undisturbed draw roughly 175' south. The edge of <br />the material in the draw was over 5' high. The operator stated <br />that the material was moved due to reclamation of an existing light <br />use road (which extends on the ridgeline). The light use road, <br />however, required no cut or fill balance that would require this <br />amount of material to be moved. Please see attached photographs <br />(one slide and one aerial). The night prior to the second day of <br />the inspection it rained, and water was observed running off the <br />disturbed area into an undisturbed draw that eventually lead off <br />site. <br />The second day of the inspection (prior to issuance of the NOV), <br />the operator installed silt fence to contain the sediment. A <br />letter was eventually sent by Seneca explaining the situation. <br />Based on my observations, the explanation presented by Seneca makes <br />sense. The NOV was modified to remove failure to salvage topsoil <br />prior to disturbance. <br />To date, the operator has installed the silt fence (before the NOV <br />was issued) and submitted the revision as required in the abatement <br />steps. <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />c:\misc\950602a <br />