Laserfiche WebLink
•~ Inspection Report • <br />November 10, 1980 <br />Page Three <br />time of year or plant moisutre requirements; bad luck.)) <br />Additionally, the group plantings 'of black cottonwood, elm, and willow <br />are of questionable success, since dormancy has already occurred. Some <br />aspen and juniper seedlings were observed to be in gcod condition. Pin- <br />yon pine was surviving but stem rust was evident and could rffect future <br />growth and survival. Rill erosion was evident over portions of the site <br />due to poor vegetative cover. <br />(The permit specifically indicates that on-site stabilization would be <br />provided. Proper erosion control and general site stabilization is <br />unlikely until proper vegetative cover is established.) <br />8. White precipitate was evident along some portions of the banks of the <br />ponds indicating a salinity and/or alkalinity problem. <br />(Salts may be one reason for the limited success in revegetating the <br />site.) <br />9. The quality of water in the ponds is questionable. In some ponds, <br />considerable siltation was evident. Plan[ life appeared to be choking <br />one pond. The main concern is whether or not continued recreational <br />use of pond water can be expected ,, and if so, to what extent. <br />(The hydrology report in the permit indicated that recreational use.of <br />this water is limited. The report states [hat water from the South <br />Platte is suitable for irrigation and industrial uses. The report also <br />states that the high nutrient level of the water indicates a condition <br />detrimental to fish.) <br />CONCLUSIONS: The on-site inspection reveals significant departures from the <br />permit and is presently in violation of Section 34-32-124, C.R.S. 1973• The <br />Division should make an effort to work with the operator to clarify staff <br />concerns, and if possible, obtain plans which would mitigate observed problems <br />and departures from the permit. The result of such efforts could negate the <br />need to bring this operation to the attention of the Board if the end result <br />was to bring the operation back into compliance with the permit and the Mined <br />Land Reclamation Act. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: The following are intended to suggest possible remedies to <br />the observed problems identified above. However, such recommendations are <br />no[ intended to be conclusive. <br />Remove all nonessential buildings or structures. <br />2. Designate the type of material, volume, location, and disposition of all <br />stockpiled material presently occurring on the site. Removal of the <br />weigh station and scales should occur as soon as possible following <br />depletion of existing stockpiles, unless their continued use is anticipated. <br />3. Topsoil stockpiles should be utilized on areas void or lacking sufficient <br />quantities and quality of topsoil. Incorporation of soil amendments and <br />organics should be considered for affected lands where reapplication of <br />