INSPEC16485 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1994-113 INSPECTION DATE 10/25/05 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This partial inspection was pertormed by the Division as a follow-up to verify statements made to this office in a letter from a citizen, as well as to inspect items proposed by the operator in current Technical Revision TR-5. The operator was contacted about the inspection, and the operator's representative named on page one was present during the inspection. The site was active at the time of the inspection, with an outside contractor excavating and crushing in the pit. Also, topsoil and overburden materials were being hauled into the pit and the former wetland area, as part of the revisions to the permit, as explained below. The required permit ID sign was posted at the entrance to the site. Numerous permit boundary markers were observed in their correct locations. The site surtace was generally dry. Onsite drainage is directed to a few small sumps, and an adequate berm exists along the south and west sides of the affected area to prevent discharges. The topsoil and overburden materials being hauled in from offsite sources (mainly from homesite developments in Mountain Village) is being placed along the south side of the pit floor (inside the south boundary) as a noise berm. The operator stated that San Miguel County required him to construct this berm to lessen transmission of noise to the residential area south of the permit area. The berm is not complete, as some additional material may be imported, and the finish grading and revegetation activity are still to be competed this season. Part of the required grading will be to pull up material comprising the south facing side of the berm, to create a stable, gentler slope, and to provide more of a buffer inside the boundary. (Note:The imported material and the berm were the subjects of the above-mentioned citizen letter. The current TR-5 was submitted so that this berm and the imported material could be made part of the approved plans in the permit. At this time, observed activities appear to match those proposed in the revision. However, the revision is not yet approved, so the operator must diligently work toward obtaining said approval.) There are a couple items in the proposed revision that require additional information thatthe operator must provide. Questions about these items are: what will be the maximum slope gradient of the noise berm; are topsoil vs overburden materials being segregated during hauling or placement; will better material (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the less suitable material (e.g., overburden) to enhance revegetation; what will be the revegetation seed mix for this new berm; is this berm to be permanent, and if not, how will the area be reclaimed after removal. The operator should address these issues adequately and soon, if this office is to consider a favorable decision. There was a loader excavating material from the north wall of the pit, which has been stripped of topsoil and mined in the past. At the conclusion of mining this season, the north wall will be sloped to a stable gradient as required in the plan. The diesel for the crusher and other equipment is stored in a raised tank placed in another steel tank for secure containment. Any spills from the generator trailer also report to the containment tank. There were no signs of spills or leaks. A small area near the extraction, that was formerly used for topsoil storage, has been stripped of its topsoil, and moved to the larger stockpile at the east end of the pit. The stripped area may be affected by 2005 excavation activity. The topsoil stockpile slopes were graded to a stable gradient, seeded and hydromulched this season. Some grass seedlings are emerging. However, there is also a new patch of Canada thistle rosettes on the slopes of the topsoil pile, notably at the southern end. There were additional thistle rosettes observed in the recently-stripped area described in the previous paragraph. This young infestation holds great potential to spread throughout the topsoil and could render it unsuitable for use in reclamation. The presence of this noxious weed is noted as a problem in this report. The correction to this problem will be for the operator to submit an additional item to be included in the technical revision still under review (TR-5): a noxious weed control plan. The operator must contact a qualified local weed control authority for technical assistance, and submit a plan that adequately addresses the thistle, as well as a written commitment to follow the plan. At this time, the weed control plan may be included in TR-5, or may be submitted as a separate technical revision, though that would require another $188 fee. See the last page for the correction date. The wetland relocation in the northern end of the permit is proceeding. The new wetland Swale is constructed along the toe of the slope, with transplanted willows and an irrigation line installed. To perhaps assure the continued functioning of the wetland, it was suggested that it might be widened below the point of the main slope runoff. Nearby the former wetland location was being filled by placement and compaction of fill hauled in from Mountain Village. The haul road was also relocated to the east of the penstock along the segment that was damaged and is now being monitored.