INSPEC09908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1999-025 INSPECTION DATE 3/30/2005 OBSERVATIONS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS This was a routine monitoring inspection conducted as part of DMG's ongoing monitoring program for permitted mines in Colorado. The inspection was also conducted to evaluate site conditions for use in updating the reclamation cost estimate and ensuring the current financial warranty is adequate to reclaim the site. The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers are in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. No significant erosional features were noted on the affected areas of the site. Noxious weed infestation was observed within the affected area. The infestation consists of tamarisk becoming established on the wash pond fines surtace and along some of the pit floor dewatering ditches. If not controlled, These infestations will most likely hinder and/or delay successful reclamation of this site and may contribute to off-site spreading and establishment of these weeds. The approved weed control plan is not adequate in addressing management strategies for these species. Please indicate what measures will be taken to manage tamarisk and Russian olive and submit a technical revision to incorporate these measures into the permit. Weed infestation is noted as a problem, with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last page of this report. Significant progress toward control of on-site weeds must be demonstrated within three years to avoid potential Board action. DMG recommends that the annual report include the location of all noxious weed patches and details management actions taken to control those weeds. Details should include methodology and timing of control methods implemented and verify that these actions are as specified in the weed management plan for this site. The permitting process for this site included debate over whether or not an inlet structure, separate from the pond outlet structure was necessary to allow this pit to fill with sediment during flood events. DMG required 100 year flood event design criteria and reclamation bond for installation of the outlet structure. The requirement for design and bonding for an inlet structure was delayed until Grand Junction Pipe (GJP) determined, through consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whether a separate inlet structure was required. To facilitate this delay in permitting and bonding for the inlet structure, GJP committed to not excavate Phases V, VI, and VII (phases bordering the river channel buffer zone) until the inlet structure engineering designs and reclamation bond were approved by DMG. During this inspection it was noted that the west half of Phase V has been excavated. DMG files do not contain any documentation that the USFWS approved deletion of an inlet structure requirement for this site, nor do they contain designs for a separate inlet structure that is engineered to safely pass a 100 year flood. Therefore, the operation is not in compliance with the approved permit. The mining phase sequence proposed in the approved mining plan is not being followed. In 2000 GJP indicated a change of phasing would be forthcoming. The 2000 DMG inspection report for this site indicated that a phase sequence revision should not be a problem as long as those phases along the river were not mined until the inlet issue was resolved and adequate bonding was in place. DMG files do not contain any documentation that a phasing change revision has been submitted. The wetlands study conducted at this site concluded that wetland acreage within the permit area is far less than the amount initially identified in the permit application. The studies were conducted while irrigation was discontinued for a year, showing that a majority of the wetland vegetation and hydrology was irrigation dependent. GJP indicated that the permit would be revised to indicate accurate information regarding wetland locations and acreage based on the studies. DMG files do not contain any documentation that this information has been updated. GJP will need to submit a revision to the permit that addresses the problems noted above, including atamarisk/Russian olive noxious weed management plan, engineering designs and bonding for installation of an inlet thatwill safely pass the 100 year event or documentation from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers indicating that the outlet can serve as both an inlet and outlet for the pit lake, a new phased mining sequence that is consistent with current excavation and future mining plans, and updated specifics regarding wetlands in the permit area. Most of the pit slopes in Phase II, IV and V were mined over 18 months ago and are not currently in final reclamation as was committed to in the reclamation plan. Some sections were never reclaimed and some have been reclaimed and were then re- affected by deposition of excess overburden to allow for construction of a perimeter road on the river side of the pit. These actions have resulted in an estimated 1000 linear feet of pit slope in excess of that which the state holds bond for reclaiming. In addition, the reclamation plan does not specify that a road will be constructed on in this location. GJP needs to perform adequate reclamation to bring the sequential reclamation in compliance with the reclamation plan or submit a revision to allow for increased reclamation liability and submit an increased financial warranty to coverthat liability (as verified by DMG through