_INSPECTION - C1980005 (32) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 30,2010 C-1980-005/Seneca II Mine S131 Inspection Topic Summary NOTE: Y=Inspected N=Not Inspected R=Comments Noted V=Violation Issued NA=Not Applicable N -Air Resource Protection Y -Roads R -Availability of Records Y -Reclamation Success R -Backfill&Grading R -Revegetation NA -Excess Spoil and Dev.Waste NA - Subsidence NA -Explosives NA - Slides and Other Damage Y -Fish&Wildlife R -Support Facilities On-site R -Hydrologic Balance R -Signs and Markers Y -Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan NA - Support Facilities Not On-site NA -Other NA - Special Categories Of Mining NA -Processing Waste Y -Topsoil COMMENTS This was a complete inspection of the Seneca II Mine. Seneca has recently submitted Permit Revision No. 2 in which they are proposing to reduce the permit boundary by 3011.9 acres. The acreage proposed for removal from the Seneca II permit has been included in the new Sage Creek Mine permit area. The Division called the PR complete on June 28, 2010. The proposed Seneca II permit area will be limited to the Pond 008 watershed in the East Wadge area. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS—Rule 5.02.4(1): Dan Mathews reviewed the records on June 28,2010. See attached list. BACKFILL and GRADING—Rule 4.14Contemporaneous Reclamation 4.14.1; Approximate Original Contour 4.14.2; Highwall Elimination 4.14.1(2)(f); Steep Slopes 4.14.2,4.27; Handling of Acid and Toxic Materials 4.14.3; Stabilization of Rills and Gullies 4.14.6: Overall,the site is stable. Some gullies remain as noted in the 2010 Rill and Gully survey that was prepared at the end of May and submitted to the Division on June 1. A couple of gullies observed on photos from the May aerial inspection were field inspected. We walked the drainage below the reclaimed solid waste disposal area. There are several spots in this area where Seneca is planning to do some maintenance work. I walked drainage SIIPM-18 to observe the gully noted in the general vicinity of Chavez Point noted in the May inspection report. There is minor erosion in the upper channel, see photo. Repairs should be done by hand to prevent equipment damage. I also walked SIIPM-8. This drainage and associated sub-drainages are maturing and stabilizing. Seneca is planning to install one or two more cross ditches in the upper part of this drainage to reduce rills in that area. HYDROLOGIC BALANCE -Rule 4.05 Drainage Control 4.05.1,4.05.2, 4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4.05.5, 4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7,4.05.10; Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Drainage—Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6,4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: All ponds were inspected. Ponds 002,003,004 and 008 were discharging. No problems were noted. Dennis Jones said he had recently tested the pH in the pre-law Wolf Creek pond and it was up to 6.4. This represents considerable improvement compared to the samples of pH 3.5 taken in August 2006.