REP42265 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CDPS permit specifies quarterly reporting of TDS, but our records do not include TDS reporting for the 3rd quarter, 2005. Operator will need to address this apparent discrepancy. Non-seep inflow monitoring and field parameter reporting is required...lnflowqugntity is calculated/reported in Table 1, described in Narrative, and source locations depicted on Figure 3 Mine Map. Since inflow is characterized as seepage, specific inflow locations were not monitored. However, field parameters and a full suite lab analysis was presented in Table 6, from gone-time sample of mine discharge in the first quarter of 2005. Surface Water Sampling East Salt Creek monitoring sites (SW-1, SW-4, and SW-8) were monitored quarterly as required. All required field and laboratory parameters were analyzed during the quarters when samples were obtained. Clarification was provided as requested in last year's review, that the upstream site SW-1 is not sampled during mine discharge events. Note that, following installation of proposed Culvert "P" on lower McClane Creek, minewater that is pumped into McClane Creek will enter East Salt Creek downstream from SW-1, rather than upstream of SW-1 as is currently the case. • McClane Creek is to be sampled "twice a year if possible". Upstream site SW-1 was reported dry during each quarterly check. One grab sample was collected during a flow event at the lower site SW-2, during the 3'd quarter, 2005. Munger Required analytical parameters were provided for the specified laboratory parameters. Two flow events were captured at the lower site on Munger Creek (SW3). One event was captured at SW-7 upstream site on Munger. Munger site SW-6 (below the mine and above the north fork of Munger) was reported as dry during the quarterly sampling visits. There is one apparent discrepancy associated with CDPS reporting for the Munger Waste Disposal Area sediment pond. The Division's inspection report for September 12, 2005 describes the affects of a large storm event in the Munger watershed. High flows in the ephemeral drainage adjacent to the pond embankment had backed up into the sediment pond through the emergency spillway. The inspection narrative stated that "remedial measures will need to include dewatering of the sediment pond and removal of the sediment...". The report further noted that the operator was making preparations to initiate pumping as soon as possible and stated that discharge would be sampled and reported in conformance with CDPS permit requirements. The following report for the Division's inspection of October noted that the pond sediment had been excavated, implying that pumping to dewater the pond had been previously completed. The CDPS reports we have on file for September and October 2005 for the sediment pond are marked "No Discharge". The operator will need to explain this apparent discrepancy. Summary There are a couple apparent discrepancies associated with CDPS reporting that the operator will need to address. Other monitoring, reporting, and hydrologic impact assessment appears in general to have been conducted in accordance with permit requirements. DMG PHC review is requested.