Laserfiche WebLink
Weed control, in particular for noxious weeds, is required by the Division when it is <br />necessary. I don't expect the revegetation to "fail completely" but acknowledge that <br />certain small areas may need interseeding or other management to ensure success. <br />However, a determination of success cannot be made entirely on the results of one <br />growing season. As stated in my reports, I consider the first year revegetation results at <br />Southfield to be excellent for the majority of the reclaimed area. Regarding the <br />comment of the NRCS individual, although I trust their expertise and respect their <br />opinion, I would, at a minimum, prefer that they conduct a site visit before they <br />prescribe or recommend a particular action. Mowing would be considered and <br />conducted if it is appropriate. <br />During the six monthly inspections I have conducted so far at the Southfield mine, I <br />have traversed all of the reclaimed areas on foot. Please be assured that I also share <br />your goal of seeing the mine site become an outstanding example of mined land <br />reclamation. <br />If the road up to the Newlin Creek mine gate is a county road, then the county is likely <br />responsible for maintenance of the road. I will check with EFCI to determine what, if <br />anything, the mine is responsible for along this road. <br />Regarding the telephone poles, I am not clear which poles you are referring to. Once I <br />understand where they are and who is responsible for them, I will address the issue. <br />Also, regarding the subsidence holes, again, I do not have any knowledge of EFCI <br />being responsible for the filling of holes. I will ask the staff in our Inactive Mines <br />Program if they are involved in any project in or around the Southfield Mine. <br />Any issue concerning reporting that Division personnel or EFMI personnel agreed to <br />send to you should be addressed directly to those individuals. I do not want to be <br />responsible for verbal commitments of others prior to taking over responsibilities at this <br />site. Regarding reference to the May 2003 Board meeting, I could find nothing in the <br />Board Findings of Fact or Board Order that indicated the Division would supply <br />reporting or other documents. However, if you would like, I can provide a color copy of <br />the monthly DMG inspection report if you feel that would help improve the <br />communication between you and the Division regarding the status at the mine site. <br />Please let me know if you would like me to do this. The public copy of the mine records <br />is kept up-to-date at the EFCI office in Florence as required by our Rules. The Division <br />also has a copy of the mine records at our office in Denver. These records are <br />regularly updated and maintained. It is a requirement of our Rules that these records <br />are available for public inspection during regular business hours. If you find difficulty <br />with access to these records, please let me know. <br />On the issue of overflow from the tailings pile, I am assuming you are referring to the <br />refuse pile. Surface runoff from the refuse pile enters pond 4, where it is treated to <br />meet effluent limitations imposed by the Water Quality Control Division. In general, for <br />postmining conditions, water treatment is with regard to sediment load. To my <br />knowledge, this pond rarely, if ever, discharges water due to storm runoff. The copies <br />of the Discharge Monitoring Reports indicate "no discharge" since the mine was <br />reclaimed. With continued establishment of vegetation at the site, runoff to these <br />ponds will be further reduced and may only occur during large rainfall events or unusual <br />snowmelt conditions. Should the two remaining ponds discharge or show evidence of <br />