Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br />during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the <br />inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />to well HGDAL2, that does not have positive drainage. Water, from the rain the night before, had <br />been impounded in the ditch. This ditch should be touched up so that positive drainage is <br />restored. <br />Signs and Markers <br />Mine ID signs were up at the required locations. The signs contained the correct information. The <br />permit boundary marker signs were also present. Stream buffer zone signs were up at the <br />required locations along Dry Creek. One sign had been knocked down, and the operator set the <br />sign back up. <br />Topsoil <br />All three topsoil stockpiles were well vegetated, with no signs of erosion. The sign at the topsoil <br />stockpile no. 2 was on the ground The operator placed the sign back up but it should be placed in <br />the ground more solidly. The operator was replacing the sign on the topsoil stockpile no. 3. The <br />sign was up on the topsoil stockpile no. 1. <br />SAES <br />There were no problems with any of the SAES, although the operator plans to seed some of the <br />railroad cu[ slopes to increase vegetation cover. Also, the operator plans on seeding the Area 2 <br />SAE, which is the facilities area outslope just east of the entrance haul road, in order to increase <br />[he vegetation cover. The silt fences at the office/parking lot/leach field SAE and the substation <br />SAE were correctly installed and fully functional. The baze ground at the substation SAE had <br />recently been seeded by the operator. <br />Facilities <br />There were no problems observed at the facilities area. <br />Records <br />Please refer to the records checklist which follows. The Division requests that the operator <br />include in the water sampling data the letter the operator had sent to the Water Quality Control <br />Division explaining the exceedence value of a ph of 9.3 for pond 2, sampled on 4/11/97. <br />