_INSPECTION - C1994082 ‎(41)‎

• Permit No: C1994082
• IBM Index Class Name: INSPECTION
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• Inspection Date: 7/15/2009
• Email Name: DTM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

r
III. COMMENTS-COMPLIANCE
Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made during the
inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the facts or
evidence supporting the enforcement action.
Areas east of the Armand Draw/Grassy Creek divide, in the Pond 011 A watershed, were not
inspected during the SL-2 inspection. Significant erosion had been noted within the Pond 011A
watershed during the Division's June inspection, including segments of YPM-13 and erosion
control ditches tributary to YPM-9. The operator indicated repairs had not been completed at the
time of the SL-2 inspection. The Division plans to inspect the Pond 11 watershed,including
the small areas requested for release in SL-2, during the October 2009 inspection, prior to
issuance of a proposed decision for SL-2.
South Pit Area
The largest acreage requested for release within SL-2 is in the South Pit area. For the purposes
of SL-2, the South Pit area includes all disturbed lands located to the south of the Section 18/19
and Section 17/20 boundary lines, within the permit area. Reclaimed watersheds within the
South Pit area drain to one of three sedimentation ponds; Pond 012, Pond 013, or Pond 014. The
Pond 012 watershed is the largest, Pond 013 watershed is the smallest. Each of the major pond
watersheds contains several sub-watersheds, with their associated permanent channel network.
Pond 012 Watershed
YPM 1-1 Drainage
Inspection in the Pond 012 watershed was begun on the revegetated slopes of the upper YPM 1-1
watershed at the south end of the permit area on property owned by John Patrick. There is a
patch of root-sprouted quaking aspen just below the ridgeline at the south end of the reclamation,
which resulted from clearing the site of mature aspen prior to disturbance ancillary to mining.
The subsoils and overburden at the location were not disturbed, and the sprouts developed from
the intact aspen root system. During active operations, a topsoil stockpile had been located to the
south of the aspen patch, and a berm of topsoil had been built up along the upper edge of the
patch to protect the trees. The rootsprout patch is separated into two parts by a former scraper
route that provided access from the topsoil stockpile to the reclaimed pit area. John Patrick had
mentioned a concern with gully erosion in the vicinity of the aspen patch in a phone conversation
prior to the inspection, and Larry Kunckle expressed this concern on site during the inspection.
Short gully segments in the immediate vicinity of the aspen patch were found to be associated
with runoff concentrated along the former scraper route and remnant topsoil berm(Photos #483
and#484 show minor erosion associated with the scraper route, and Photos #486 and#487
show the berm and resultant gully). Additional short hillslope gullies were noted down-slope of
the volunteer aspen patch in the vicinity of the"Y" formed by the two short forks of the YPM 1-
6