Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br />during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the <br />inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />On May 13, 1994 a partial inspection was conducted at the Apex No. 2 Mine. A <br />facility representative was not present during this inspection. The weather was <br />clear and warm. Snow melt and associated spring runoff have passed. The <br />ground was dry. <br />The grass was greening up and the new vegetation appears to be covering <br />well. No new erosion was noted in the ephemeral drainage at the location of <br />the reclaimed office location. The ZX4's that had been placed to stabilize the fill <br />have not moved or rotated. The netting and mulch are holding the ground well <br />and vegetation is taking. The drainage's were working as designed. The swale <br />across the county road was clear. The pond did not have any standing water <br />and did not appear to have held much water from spring runoff. <br />The landowner appears to have driven a tractor to the shed this spring. This <br />left deep ruts in the recently reclaimed area. Since the land owner will be <br />accessing the shed by this route the road should be surtaced to handle the <br />anticipated traffrc. Water was running high in Trout Creek but for spring snow <br />melt; this appeared to be less than normal. The culvert under the county road <br />contained a marmot. <br />Recent disturbance was noted on the access road to the reclaimed portal <br />bench. In a call later to Greg Lewicki, he said that he had a worker with a <br />backhoe digging test pits to see if some of the material from the outer bench <br />could be used in reclamation of the road. The test pit showed that this material <br />was not suitable. <br />