2012-09-27_REPORT - C1996084

• Permit No: C1996084
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 9/27/2012
• Doc Name: 2nd Quarter 2012 Excess Spoil Fill Inspection Report
• From: DRMS
• To: New Elk Coal Company, LLC
• Permit Index Doc Type: Waste Pile/Fill Report
• Email Name: LDS
• Email Name: DIH
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
September 27, 2012
Ron Thompson
New Elk Coal Company, LLC
122 West First Street
Trinidad, CO 80182
Re: Lorencito Canyon Mine (Permit No. C- 1996 -084)
2012, Q2, Excess Spoil Fill Inspection Reports
Dear Mr. Thompson,
COLORADO
Q I V I S I O N O F
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
John W. Hickenlooper
Governor
Mike King
Executive Director
Loretta E. Pineda
Director
The Division received New Elk Coal Company's 2012 Second Quarter Excess Spoil Fill Inspection
Reports on August 28, 2012. The reports state that spoil fill numbers 7, 8 and 9 were inspected on June
16, 2012, which is acceptable and occurred with the second quarter of 2012.
All excess spoil fills inspected are in final reclamation and have been through phase one bond release.
Following review, the Division finds that the report is in compliance with the following rules:
1. 4.09. 1 (1 1)(a) — The fill was inspected for stability quarterly by a qualified professional
specialist experienced in construction of earth and rockfill embankments under the direction of
a qualified professional engineer during the (5) the revegetation period. There were no signs of
stability issues, seeps or springs at any of the spoil fills during the time of these inspections.
2. 4.09.1(11)(c) — [No longer applicable during this stage of construction]
Note, however, that the report is not in compliance with the following rules:
1. 4.09. 1 (1 1)(b) —The Division should receive a certified report within two weeks of the
inspection date.
As a reminder, per Rule 4.09.1(11)(b), a copy of these reports should be retained at the mine site.
Finally, the reports in question were submitted with a cover letter referring to a different type of
inspection at a different mine (Q2 Sediment Pond Inspections at the New Elk Mine). Presumably this
was the result of a simple clerical error.
Sincerely,
Leigh Simmons.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines