2012-05-11_INSPECTION - C1981015

Home Browse Search

area, and reseeding of all areas disturbed through this activity. Because the work conducted in 2009 exceeded 5% of the permit area, DRMS determined this work reset its ten -year revegetation responsibility period. Field Evaluation Because this site never received a permanent program permit, I was unable to acquire maps identifying historic surface features such as sedimentation ponds. One large pond remains on site, and a smaller area to the east appears to be a reclaimed sedimentation pond. The remaining pond has a single open - channel rock -lined spillway at its western edge, which is near the southwestern permit area boundary. The pond was not retaining any water at the time of inspection. The pond embankments and spillway appear stable. There was no evidence of sediment leaving the pond discharge structure (see photo 6987). The eastern area, which appears to be a reclaimed sedimentation pond, is well- vegetated and would no longer impound water. Remnants of old silt fence remain on site but are no longer functional (see photo 6988). Evidence of water running through this area is apparent and is consistent with small natural drainage channels in the surrounding area. Vegetation appears to be doing well and is consistent with surrounding area vegetation although cheat grass is still prevalent on site. Rubber rabbitbrush and four -wing saltbrush, both seeded species, are thriving. The reclaimed haul road was pocked to encourage water and seed retention. This effort appears to have been very successful, as the old haul road corridor is stable and well- vegetated (see photo 6989). The portal benches are stable and well- vegetated. The development waste fill and its rock - lined down drain are also stable. Vegetation is established on the fill, although this area is relatively steep and vegetation is slightly sparser than on surrounding areas (see photo 6990). A landowner has recently begun constructing facilities within the permit area. This landowner un- reclaimed an access road, constructed an outhouse, and poured a concrete foundation for what appears to be a small cabin (see photos 6991 and 6992). Although these activities have not created any erosion, this is worrisome in the fact that DRMS may still carry some liability in the event landowner activities result in erosion or off -site impacts. Additionally, the landowner has inadvertently disqualified that portion of the property from meeting the reclamation standards which DRMS would hold the property to before terminating jurisdiction on the site. DRMS may need to reclassify those portions of the re- disturbed area as an alternative post mining land use (potentially "residential ") with permanent facilities. This appears to be consistent with landowner plans, although the DRMS should consult with the landowner and assure this post mining land use is compatible with land use policies and zoning (regulation 4.16.2(1)). The mine site is stable and well- vegetated. No signs of erosion or off -site impacts were observed during this inspection.