Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1978-116 <br />INSPECTION DATE 6-16-2005 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS <br />This monitoring inspection was conducted to verify corrective actions taken to abate problems noted during DMG s May 4, 2005 <br />inspection of this site. Mr, Russ Means, representing DMG, also accompanied on the inspection. <br />This was a brief inspection of the new facilities, portals and waste rock/ore stockpile pad permitted through Amendment No. 1 <br />(AM-01) in the fall of 2004 at the Wright Mine portal location. <br />Non-compliance issues noted in the previous inspection are listed below with the resolution or corrective action observed during <br />this inspection: <br />1) The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers were not observed. Resolution: Sign and markers were <br />in compliance; <br />2) Diversion ditches around the waste rock and ore stockpile area are not sized and constructed as designed. Resolution: <br />Ditches appear to be sized and constructed correctly. <br />3) Diversion ditches are not armored as designed. Resolution: Riprap sized for the 10 year / 24 hour event has been installed <br />at required locations. Larger riprap will be required at final reclamation to ensure stability of this diversion during the 100 <br />year / 24 hour event. <br />4) Topsoil and waste rock stockpiles have spilled into the diversion ditches. Resolution: The topsoil and waste rock piles have <br />been relocated out of the diversion drainage and are shaped into definite piles. A berm has been added around the waste <br />rock toe. The topsoil pile will need to be seeded in the near future to stabilize against erosion and weed infestation. <br />5) Apparently all topsoil has not been salvaged, stockpiled and protected, some was left in place, contaminated andlor buried. <br />Resolution: See # 4 above. Additional topsoil will be stripped and salvaged if conditions require expansion of the current <br />waste rock pile size. <br />6) Topsoil appears to have been haphazardly salvaged into numerous scattered berms and piles. Resolution: See #4 above. <br />7) Topsoil salvage apparently occurred when the soil moisture was excessive, potentially adversely affecting the soil structure. <br />Resolution: This issue cannot be corrected except to conduct future topsoil salvage operations when soil conditions are <br />better. Cotter disagreed with DMG that this is anon-compliance issue. DMG maintains that, per Rule 3.1.10(4), the <br />revegetation plan shall provide for the greatest probability of success in plant establishment and vegetation development by <br />considering environmental factors such as...soil texture and fertility... <br />8) Catchment basins for the rock/ore storage pad appear smaller than designed and appear to be created with topsoil, <br />potentially contaminating this resource. Resolution: The catchment basins have been reworked and the drainage patterns <br />revised. These feature appear adequate, but Cotter will need to revise the permit to incorporate the updated design and <br />construction specifications into the permit. <br />9) Safety and drainage berms appear to be constructed out of waste rock without prior demonstration thatwaste rock is non- <br />toxic and non-acid forming. Resolution: Most of the drainage from berms reports to sediment control basins. The <br />remainder of the berms have been covered with clean inert material. This measure is adequate far the time being. Upon <br />determination of final disposition for the waste rock, all waste rock berm material may have to be removed and replaced <br />with clean material. <br />10) Much of the drainage on the south side of the waste dumplore stockpile area appears to bypass the catchment due to the <br />lack of adequate drainage structures and adherence to design specifications detailed in the permit. Resolution: The <br />settling pond on the south side of the waste rock/ore stockpile area has been reconstructed and swales in the road <br />repaired to ensure adequate sediment control for this pad. <br />11) It does not appear that the waste rock dumplore stockpile area was excavated to 30 inches below the county road <br />elevation, greatly reducing the capacity of this area. No resolution required. This comment was due to DMG staff mis- <br />reading of the settling pond specifications, which do not apply to the pad construction. <br />12) Concrete pads have been poured for some portable structures, without including those pads in the mining and reclamation <br />plans and including cost for removal of those pads in the reclamation bond. DMG maintains that this is anon-compliance <br />issue because the mine plan and reclamation plan do not include either provisions to leave the structures as permanent, or <br />provisions and increased financial warranty for removal and disposal of these structures. Cotter will need to submit a <br />technical revision to address either permanent retention, or reclamation of these features. Reclamation information will <br />need to include volumes and method of demolition/disposal. <br />13) Spill containment for the diesel tank appears to be undersized and shabbily lined. Resolution: The liner installation has <br />been repaired and the size verified as adequate. <br />f4) A drum of waste oi! was noted on the pad area not stored in secondary containment and should be moved into and <br />maintained in secondary containment. Resolution: The drum is no longer stored on site. <br />15) Reporting of storage of waste rock and ore on the new stockpile area was not reported to DMG within 30 days as <br />