My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC02071
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC02071
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:57:12 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:03:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
9/30/1991
Doc Name
MINE SITE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />`]SPECTION REPORT Page 3 <br />in the future. I do not think that was the intent of the rill and <br />gully standard drawn up by the Division but do not have proof to back <br />the comment. That being the case, the operator is in compliance and <br />commented that they intend to work on some of the gullies despite <br />regulatory approval to let them erode further. Mr. Waldron said that <br />he would review the rill and gully requirement from their office, <br />compare it with what has been approved and wh~CJrequire changes if <br />needed. <br />OTHER COMMENTS <br />Thistle control on the mine was discussed and noted in the areas <br />inspected. In most instances, it appears as though they did spray <br />but the second terrace on the far eastern side of the mine next to <br />the road going to Oak Creek should be monitored for control. Other <br />areas in the immediate vicinity were sprayed but it did not appear as <br />though they had been hit in this one spot. <br />Nesting boxes for raptors on the upper terrace of area 41 are not <br />being maintained. They should be pulled out. Water monitoring <br />records and field sampling methods were reviewed. Thete were several . <br />comments made in the submission to the Dept of Health regarding the <br />tests for silver in effluents. Evidently the contracted lab testing <br />foc silver in samples from the mine was not detecting limits as <br />required but agreements were reached as to what was needed and what <br />could be done. No other problems were noted. The instruments and <br />methods used for field parameter testing of surface and ground water <br />monitoring are being done according to standards required by the EPA. <br />Vegetative sampling was in progress for shrub surveys on a portion <br />of the reclaimed area of the mine. According to mine personnel, the <br />sites selected for the surveys were generated according to approved <br />statistical methods. I did find that on the ground, they varied <br />slightly from the map generated by the sampling method. The~'did not <br />use a compass or surveyor to establish the route and point of origin. <br />the comment was made that mine personnel are familiar enough with the <br />terrain and maps that this was not needed. I will let the question <br />about statistical validity in this case up to reviewing personnel <br />from the staff for bond release applications from the opeator by the <br />appropriate regulatory agency. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.