INSPEC32271

• Permit No: C1981025
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• Inspection Date: 4/17/2007
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Signs and Markers
Disturbed area boundary markers (steel stakes) were properly displayed at the numerous locations
inspected. Mine i.d. signs (including the DBMS address and phone number) were properly displayed
on the public road entrances into the permit azea. No topsoil mazkers are required as all topsoil
replacement has been completed.
Roads
The only remaining roads in the permit azea, other than County and Forest Service roads, aze the two-
track light use road that extends through the Water Development (treatment) area and the former haul
road that extends through the former loadout portion of the permit area. The two-track and haul road
have been approved as permanent features to remain after final bond release. Both roads were in good
condition during the inspection.
Hydroloeic Balance
Pond 9 -The sediment control pond (pond 9) contained a few feet of muddy water that was more than
6 feet below the principal spillway. The embankments of this pond appeared stable, with a fair amount
of vegetative cover. The principal spillway (a 12-inch diameter steel pipe) and the emergency spillway
(a rock rip-rapped channel) appeazed in good condition. This pond has previously been approved as a
permanent feature on the site for use by livestock and wildlife.
Mine No. 1 discharge -Water from Mine No. 1 was being dischazged into Long Fond from the pvc
pipe at the west end of the pond. No problems were noted with the discharge. Field parameters aze
shown in Table 1, below, and indicated no problem with compliance with water quality standards.
Mine No..T discharge -. Water from Mine No. 3 was being dischazged from a 6-inch diameter pvc
pipe onto the ground near the bottom of the embankment of the county road, across the road from the
Mine No. 3 portal area. Discharge at this location varied from the description of mine water treatment
on page 4-121 of the mining permit, which says "Water from the No. 1 Mine and No. 3 Mine continue
to be treated by the passive water treatment system." The discharge had deposited an orange iron stain
on approximately 350 square feet of ground in the area located downhill from the dischazge pipe
toward North Thompson Creek, but the stain did not extend into the creek. The discharge from the
pipe was estimated to be 10 gpm, of slightly cloudy water. Little, if any, of the discharge was making
it to the creek. The discharge appeared to be absorbed by rocky soil and pine needle duff in the stained
area before reaching the creek. DRMS measured field parameters from the discharging pipe during the
bond release portion of the inspection on April 17 and measured field parameters and collected a
sample for laboratory analysis on April 18. Field parameters are shown in Table 1, below. (This
inspection report was issued before the results from the laboratory analysis were available.) Field
parameters were also measured in North Thompson Creek on April 18 and showed no effect from the
Mine No. 3 discharge (see Table 1, below). The operator reported that the Mine No. 3 dischazge was
re-routed to the Long Pond (the first of the three treatment ponds) approximately one hour after the
DRMS lab sample was collected. DRMS had requested the dischazge to be re-routed to the treatment
ponds, after collecting the lab sample. Two days after the Mine No. 3 discharge was re-routed to the
treatment ponds, DRMS measured field parameters on April 20 from the Mine No. 3 discharge at the
pipe on the west end of Long Pond and at the outfall of the treatment system below pond T2 (former
CDPS outfall 001). The total iron at the former outfa11001 was less than 1 mg/1 (see Table 1). This
iron content indicated the three-pond treatment system was adequately removing iron from the Mine
No. 3 discharge (assuming enough time had elapsed for Mine No. 3 water to fully pass through and
mix in the ponds since being routed to the ponds).
4