INSPEC36841 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1977-205 INSPECTION DATE'12-8-2004 OBSERVATIONS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS This was a routine monitoring inspection conducted as part of the DMG ongoing monitoring program for active mine sites in Colorado. The permit indicates that instream portions of this permit are not going to be mined until significant gravel recharge has occurred in the stream bed and grade control structures have been constructed. During this inspection, Tri-County Gravel indicated that they are negotiating with the North Fork River Improvement Association to forego any future instream mining in the permit area, allowing NFRIA to perform river restoration on the portion of the river that runs through the permit area. Phase 1 is currently being dewatered and is very close to being mined out. Aside from a couple areas of over-steepened slopes, final grade has been achieved on the perimeter of Phase 1. Tri-County Gravel indicated they have decided, in conjunction with the NFRIA river restoration project, to revise the reclamation plan so the river does not flow through Phase 1. The river will be restored in it's existing channel and Phase 1 will become a permanent lake. Adam and outlet has already been constructed at the northwest corner of Phase 1 to create the lake. These revised plans and features are noted as a problem since they have been partially implemented without first being submitted to DMG as a revision to the permit, providing for DMG review and comment. Tri-County gravel must submit a revision to incorporate the reclamation plan changes into the permit. The revision will need to include: 1) Documentation that adequate water rights are in place for the Phase 11ak o~ved documentation that the Phase 1 lake dam is engineered and constructed to appropriate specifications and has been app by the State Engineer's Office; 3) engineering specifications for the river reconstruction, including hydrologic data and calculation used to determine design parameters; 4) any details regarding required Army Corps of Engineer andlor any required local government approvals; 5) any proposed land ownership changes with adequate access rights to complete reclamation; 6) a commitment to submit certified as-built drawings for the river channel restoration within 90 days of completion of the construction phase of the project, and; 7) revised mining and reclamation plan maps. Projects slated to receive funding from outside sources sometimes lose funding. In this case, if the NFRIA river restoration plan becomes part of the approved Tri-County Gravel permit reclamation plan, that scenario would leave Tri-County Gravel responsible for submittal of a reclamation bond that covers reclamation of the river channel to the specifications proposed in the NFRIA plan. Tri-County Gravel may wish to clarify in this revision that the proposed NFRIA river restoration will take place only if it is fully funded and include an alternate reclamation plan to be implemented if funding forthe NFRIA project does not come through. With this wording and alternate reclamation plan in the permit, DMG will only require enough bond to complete the less costly of the iwo proposed reclamation plans. The permit indicates that no dewatering will occur. However, the operator indicated that they pump down the pit and mine it with front end loaders. A technical revision will need to be submitted to address this revised mining method, any impacts to surface and groundwater hydrologic balance, provisions for maintaining vegetation on the areas designated as riparian buffer zones, and document that the discharge permit addresses the location and volume of discharge associated with the dewatering operation. There is a waste asphalt pile located west of Phase 1, left behind after a previous batch plant was operated and removed. Recycling reject asphalt is a common practice at sites with asphalt batch plants and crushers. This permit does not include provisions for, or bond for stockpiling and/or reclaiming waste asphalt. Therefore, Tri-County gravel must either remove the waste asphalt and refrain from storing this type of material in the future, or submit a revision to the permit that specifies where this material will be stored and the maximum volume the stockpile will hold. The reclamation bond will need to be revised to include disposal costs for this material stockpile at maximum volume. Noxious and/or problematic weed infestation was observed within the affected area. The infestation, including Russian knapweed, tamarisk and Russian olive, if not controlled, will most likely hinder andlor delay successful reclamation of this site and contribute to off-site spreading and establishment of these weeds. A weed control plan developed in consultation with, and approved by, the appropriate local weed control authority must be submitted as a technical revision to this 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. The reclamation cost estimate for this site is due to be recalculated and updated with current cost figures. DMG will plan on recalculating the reclamation cost estimate in 90 days, allowing adequate time for the permit to be revised to correct the conditions noted above. If the revision is not submitted by March 18, 2005, the bond amount will be recalculated, including costs for reclamation of the above noted conditions, to bring them into compliance with the currently approved reclamation plan.