INSPEC20919 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 3) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1977-129 INSPECTION DATE 5-11-2004 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS DMG records indicate that applicable portions of Stage X have not been seeded since the initial attempt in 1978, and the applicable portion of Stage Y and Stage 1 have not been seeded since the initial attempt in 1999. If this is not the case, WBM should submit documentation of additional seeding efforts that have taken place. During the inspection, W BM indicated to the BLM that the Mined Land Reclamation Board (Board) would generally release an operator from reclamation responsibiliryon a site where they have attempted to establish vegetation a couple of times, but have been unsuccessful. Recently, the Board denied that type of request because the site was not adequately stabilized and did not meet the requirements of rule 3.1.10(1). Generally, vegetative stands consisting almost exclusively of annual species are not considered to be effective, long-lasting cover capable of self-regeneration and therefore may not adequately stabilize the site in the long term. Rule 3.1.3 specifies that "All reclamation shall be carried to completion by the Operator with all reasonable diligence, and each phase of reclamation shall be completed within five (5) years from the date the Operator informs the office that such has commenced, unless extended by the Board or Office ° This timeframe would begin, for Stages X, Y, and 1, in the spring of 1996. Because the applicable area of Stage X has apparently not had revegetation tasks performed since that time, and because Stages Y and 1 apparently have not had revegetation tasks performed since the 1999 seeding, the lack of diligence to establish vegetation on these phases is noted as a problgm on page 5 of this report, with corrective actions and a correction date specified. It is evident that the cattle are having an adverse impact on portions of the areas in final reclamation, as evidenced by some areas that are completely trampled and paths trampled along much of the Stage 1 pond shore. It is also probable thatthe cattle grazed any new vegetation that germinated after seeding and adversely impacted the chance for successful revegetation. Two previous inspections, (1982 and 1995) noted that the site had been impacted by cattle and recommended thatthe operator take measures to keep the cattle off the reclamation areas. Rule 3.1.10(4) specifies that the revegetation plan shall provide for the greatest probability of success in plant establishment and vegetation development by considering environmental and biological factors, including restriction of grazing during initial vegetation establishment. This rule also specifies that, the Board or Office, in consultation with the landowner and the local Soil Conservation District, shall determine when grazing may start. Continued grazing of the reclamation areas of Stages X, Y, and 1 is noted as a problem on page 5 of this report, with corrective actions and a correction date specified. There is a significant component of tamarisk becoming established on the portions of the site that are in reclamation phase, as well as a continued infestation by knapweed and whitetop. Since the knapweed problem was noted in the June 19, 1998 inspection, the operator contacted the local weed control authority and implemented a revised weed control program. The September 7, 2000 annual report indicates that the initial year of weed control, per the plan recommended by the Mesa County Weed Control Authority, consisted of an October 1999 spraying that was reported as "reasonably successful" followed by a July 2000 spraying that was reported as "disappointing results". Though the County Weed Control Authority recommendation emphasized fall spraying, and the initial spraying observations indicated that fall application resulted in better control, all subsequent annual reports specify that weed control spraying was performed in May and June. Currently, the weed control efforts appear to be minimizing the spread of the noxious weeds onto newly disturbed areas, but these efforts appear to be having little affect controlling established patches. Tamarisk was added to the Mesa County noxious weed list approximately two years ago and must now be controlled on the affected areas of permitted mine sites in Mesa County. The weed control plan for the this site will need to be revised to include control efforts for tamarisk, developed in consultation with, and approved by, the appropriate local weed control authority, and must be submitted as a technical revision to this permit. Though weed control is only required on the affected areas of the site, DMG strongly recommends that weed control be performed on all infested acreage within the permit area and that the control efforts adhere~to the recommendations specified by the County Weed Control Authority. Continued infestation of the site by noxious weeds, and failure to follow the weed control plan specifications are noted as a problem, with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on page 6 of this report. Significant progress toward control of on-site weeds must be demonstrated within three years to avoid potential Board action. A copy of this report will be sent to the appropriate weed control authority for this area (noted below). More information on noxious weed control can be obtained from this office or from the county weed control authority noted below. Two depressions approximately 10 feet in diameter were observed just over the crest of the northwest backfilled slope in Stage X. These depressions had what appeared to be partially caved cavities underlying portions of the depression. WBM will need to excavate into these depressions to verify the extent of the voids and ensure they are completely filled by repair operations. These repaired areas will then need to have topsoil replaced, and be revegetated per the approved reclamation plan. This backfill instability is noted as a problem, with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on page 6 of this report. The reclamation cost estimate is due for updating and will be recalculated in the next few weeks. If an adjustment in the amount is warranted, notice requiring the adjustment will be forwarded to Whitewater Building Materials (WBM).