Laserfiche WebLink
111. 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 inspection <br />and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />I conducted an inspection of the revoked Blue Flame mine site on April 2, 2002, at 3:30 pm. The <br />inspection focused on apparent revegetation success, in anticipation of sampling later this year and <br />possible termination of DMG jurisdiction over the site. <br />Most of the small disturbance supports a pretty thick stand of cool season grasses, with a scattering of <br />shrubs, a few patches of volunteer aster and a scattering of annual or biennial weeds, Also a few <br />Canada thistle and Russian knapweed, but not a significant infestation. Dominant grasses appeared to <br />be smooth brome and western wheatgrass, with good representation of several other cool season <br />grasses; including green needle, timothy, Arizona fescue, and various wheatgrasses. I didn't see any <br />warm season grasses. Few perennial forbs were observed, although it was too early in the season for <br />most forbs to be readily apparent. The site is stable and should meet cover and production standards. <br />Due to lack of warm season grasses, low cover provided by perennial forbs and shrubs, and relatively low <br />number of shrubs, it is unlikely that the species diversity standard or woody plant density standard would <br />be met. <br />The small disturbed azea is relatively uniform with respect to slope, aspect, and vegetative <br />growth, and a simple random sample design will work fine. <br />