INSPEC03165 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-2001-001 INSPECTION DATE 7/14/05 OBSERVATIONS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS WHE This inspection occurred in response to a complaint submitted by Ms. Pat Kantor, President of Citizens for Accountability and Responsibility (GEAR). The complaint, received on June 14, 2005, asserts that the operator had not complied with DMG's corrective actions resulting from a problem identified during the October 5, 2004 inspection. The October 5`h inspection occurred in response to a complaint submitted by Ms. Pat Kantor of CFAR, which alleged an absence of appropriate vegetative cover and proliferation of noxious weeds on stockpiled reclamation materials. During the October 5'h inspection DMG observed that the operator had employed weed control methods for not only the permit area but also for areas beyond the permit boundary. In the report generated from the October 5`h inspection, DMG noted that previous attempts to establish a vegetative coverfor stockpiled topsoil included hydro seeding in August 2001 and broadcast seeding in September 2003. Both of the previous attempts to establish vegetative cover exhibited limited success, partly due to drought conditions. During the October 5`h inspection the operator committed to a third seeding consisting of slender wheatgrass, mountain brome, annual rye, winter wheat, sainfoin, and alfalfa, to be broadcast during the fall season of 2004. DMG's corrective action stated that the Division would allow sufficient time to evaluate the third seeding. However, if the third attempt did not succeed, the operator must revise the permit to address Rule 3.1.9(1) using alternate methods. DMG set June 1, 2005 as the deadline to either establish an appropriate vegetative cover or submit a revision to the permit addressing Rule 3.1.9(1). During the time of this July 14"' inspection, mining and reclamation activities were active. Mining activities had commenced in the southern end of the permit area and had advanced north, as described in the approved mine plan. The operator had not installed the dewatering pipe and had not commenced dewatering the pit. Water was impounded within the southern portions of the pit. Topsoil stockpiles S3 and S4 bordered the pit along the south, southwest and southeast. Overburden stockpiles S5 and S6 bordered the pit along the west and east sides. Overburden stockpiles S5 and S6 were active, in that overburden materials had been recently added to the stockpiles. Vegetative cover for topsoil stockpiles S3 and S4 ranged from dense and diverse to sparse and weedy. The inconsistency of the vegetative cover correlated with steepness of slope and slope aspect. The steep slopes of the stockpiles appear to be related to conditions of the county special use permit, which require a minimum height for the stockpiles necessary to provide a visual andlor noise barrier. Topsoil stockpiles S3 and S4 appeared stable, evidence of slumping, sliding, or significant erosion was not observed. Vegetative cover for topsoil stockpiles S3 and S4 consisted of various grasses including slenderwheatgrass and mountain brome, sainfoin, alfalfa, yellow sweetclover, sunflower, Russian thistle, musk thistle, Canada thistle and field bindweed. Evidence of the operator recently employing weed control methods for the musk thistle and Canada thistle were observed. Therefore, the existing vegetative cover for the stockpiled topsoil appears compliant with the requirements of Rule 3.1.9(1). The provisions of Rule 3.1.9(1 }apply only to salvaged topsoil which is intended to be utilized as topsoil during reclamation of affected lands. The provisions of Rule 3.1.9(1) do not apply to material stockpiles or overburden stockpiles not intended to be replaced as topsoil during reclamation. However, the weed control requirements of Rule 3.1.10(6) apply to all portions of the permit area. As noted above, during this inspection evidence of the operator recently employing weed control methods for the regulated noxious weeds was observed. The operator has committed to continued weed control efforts. Such commitments occur not only as permit conditions but also in the operator's response to CFAR's June 14`" complaint. Copy of the operator's response is enclosed with this report.