INSPEC05780 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5) The plan in the permit amendment application stated that soil or other material suitable for coverage during reclamation would be stripped from the area prior to waste rock placement. It was not intended that the entire area would necessarily be stripped before any waste rock was placed, rather, that where waste was being placed, the soil would be removed prior. This was done. There may be a place or two where there has been some waste excursion outside the stripped area, but such a case is very minor. 6) The soil/cover material has been removed from the remainder of the area where waste rock will be piled. This cover material is now piled in the north end of the permitted area. See Photo 5. 7) Stripping of the surface area for the waste rock pile began in February, 2005. The soil was wet due to snowmelt. That is the reason only a portion of the area was stripped, as mentioned above in item 5. Cotter disagrees with DMG that stripping material while it is wet constitutes anon-compliance issue. 8) The catchment structures were not as lazge as the design fora 10 year-24 hour event (as calculated in Appendix B of the amendment application) on the date of the DMG second inspection, May 4, 2005. This is due to the fact that the entire area expected to be used for waste rock disposal was not yet cleazed (i.e. still under construction as explained in items 5, 6, and 7 above). However, they were adequate for the size of area that had been stripped, as noted in the DMG inspection report of March 24, 2005, page 2, OBSERVATIONS, which states, "Due to weather it was easy to observe stormwater movement. No erosion or sedimentation issues were noted. Stormwater is being channeled to prevent off site impacts." The catchment at the south end of the waste/ore stockpile area was excavated in red mudstone, not topsoil, until it encountered hard sandstone bedrock, limiting its final depth. The shape of the stockpile area, as it is now being built, will have a drainage divide that will cause about 213 of the runoff to flow to the northern catchment and approximatelyl/3 to the southern catchment, not''/Z each way as was anticipated in the calculations of Appendix B. The southern catchment has been enlazged to be sufficient to hold at least I/3 of the 10-year event runoff. It is shown in Photo 6. The northern catchment structure has also been enlarged sufficient to hold at least 2/3 of the calculated runoff. This is shown in Photo 7. 9) The safety berms azound the pad area, on the haulage ramp to the county road, and on the ramp to the portal elevation are mostly made of waste rock. Almost all runoff from this area will be contained in the catchment that was built north of the office trailer (below the outcrop behind the inspector in DMG Photo #30) or will run down the ramp into the portal. Portions of the berms where runoff may bypass the catchment (such as the north end of the haulage ramp at the county road elevation) have been covered with native material, excavated from the stockpile area's southern catchment, to prevent off site impacts. 10) Dips will be maintained at both driveways on the east side of the county road in order to channel runoff into the catchments. Such a dip did not exist near the southern catchment at the time of the inspection, but it has been re-established. See Photo 6. No runoff has ever bypassed the northern catchment.