2009-09-29_REVISION - C1981047 (7)

Home Browse Search

6. As requested by Oxbow in their August 29, 2008 letter to the Division, pond 4 should be backfilled and graded by pushing in only the northeast portion of the pond embankment while removing discharge pipes and filling in the spillway. The knapweed adjacent to pond 4 needed to be sprayed before pond 4 could be backfilled and graded. - The ditch on the reclaimed upper mine bench terrace and the ditch that leads to pond 5 must remain. 8. The short upland diversion ditch in the northeast corner of the reclaimed main mine site and the upland diversion ditch at the reclaimed temporary coal stockpile area did not need to be reclaimed. 9. The 18 inch diameter black plastic culvert on the north end of the disturbed area needed to be removed. 10. The operator needed to continue spraying noxious weeds on the mine site. 11. Piezometers and survey markers need to be reclaimed. 12. The three underdrain pipes needed to be cut back to ground level and the pipe outlets covered with rocks. 13. Mine signs and surface disturbance markers needed to be removed at final bond release. The second Phase II and III final bond release inspection was conducted on August 27, 2009. Present was Stan Muhr, owner of Minrec, the operator of the Blue Ribbon Mine. Also present were Elizabeth Shaeffer, representing the Office of Surface Mining and Joe Dudash of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The Bureau of Land Management, the USDA-Forest Service, Oxbow Mining LLC and the holders of the Allen grazing rights were notified of this inspection but no representatives were present. In the Phase II and Phase III final bond release request, Minrec had provided a soil loss comparison evaluation that had demonstrated that the vegetative cover on the reclaimed disturbed area was sufficient to control sediment loss so that untreated runoff from the disturbed area will not contribute suspended solids levels greater than that from pre-mining levels. This demonstration was formally inserted into the permit application through Technical Revision No. 15. Therefore, sediment ponds 4 and 5 were no longer needed so they were reclaimed. At sediment pond 4, the northeast section of the pond embankment had been pushed in and the pond spillways had been removed. The disturbed area had been seeded. The resulting vegetative cover at pond 4 appeared to be comparable to the surrounding undisturbed area vegetative cover. The vegetative cover at the location of the former pond embankment was lagging behind that of the rest of the reclaimed pond, even though the area had been ripped before seeding. However, the total area was very small and the terrain was flat, so no problem with erosion was anticipated. The southern section of the pond 5 embankment had been pushed in and the area seeded. The pond 5 spillways had been removed as well. The vegetative cover on the reclaimed pond 5 disturbed area was comparable to that on the undisturbed land. Similar to pond 4, the vegetative cover on the reclaimed pond embankment area was not as good as on the rest of the reclaimed pond disturbed area. However, erosional problems are not anticipated since the very small area is flat and the vegetation is sufficient.