My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-03-10_INSPECTION - M2006013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M2006013
>
2014-03-10_INSPECTION - M2006013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:40:51 PM
Creation date
3/10/2014 4:47:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2006013
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
3/10/2014
Doc Name
Inspection report
From
DRMS
To
Eastern Colorado Aggregates, LLLP
Inspection Date
1/27/2014
Email Name
TOD
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PERMIT #: M- 2006 -013 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: TOD <br />INSPECTION DATE: January 27, 2014 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This was a normal routine monitoring inspection conducted by Tyler O'Donnell of the Division of Reclamation, Mining <br />and Safety (Division/DRMS). Eastern Colorado Aggregates, LLLP, the Operator, was represented by Joe Baxter during <br />the inspection. The Potts Pit #2 is located approximately 7 miles north of Walsenburg, Colorado. The Potts Pit #2 is a 49 <br />acre 112 which is permitted for the extraction of construction materials primarily sand and gravel. The approved post - <br />mining land use is rangeland. <br />The sky was slightly overcast. The ground was dry. No Mining equipment was present at the time of the inspection. The <br />last annual report indicated that the last site activity was in April 2013. <br />Backfilling and Grading: <br />The site has had some grading work conducted between phase 1 and 3 (see figure #1). Phase 1 and phase 3 currently <br />daylight to the north. There was a large stockpile of screened reject material and product stockpiles in the northwest <br />corner of phase 1. The screened reject material stockpile is approximately 320 feet long, 225 feet wide and 15 to 25 feet <br />height. <br />Financial Warranty: <br />The current amount of financial warranty the Operator has on deposit with the State is $64,836. Based on the <br />observations made during this inspection and the large stockpile of screened reject material, the cost to reclaim the site is <br />estimated to be $77,653.98 (see attached reclamation cost estimate). The new required financial warranty is $77,700, <br />resulting in current deficit of financial warranty on deposit with the State in the amount of $12,846. This deficit in bond <br />amount is cited as a problem and must be corrected by May 9, 2014, by submitting the additional bond amount of <br />$12,846. <br />Hydrologic Balance: <br />The pit excavation is located on a gravel terrace. The bottom of the pit was dry. There was no evidence of excessive <br />erosion. There appeared to be no significant impacts to the prevailing hydrologic balance. <br />Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan: <br />Mining appears to have been progressing from Phase 1 southeastward into phase 3. Only a small portion of Phase 3 has <br />been disturbed. The total Disturbed area appears to be approximately 17 acres. All mining activity appeared to be within <br />the marked boundaries. <br />Roads: <br />The access road was in good condition. <br />Reclamation Success: <br />This phase 1 has not yet been reclaimed. Phase 1 is currently being used for processing and stockpiling. It appears that <br />some backfilling and grading has occurred along the southern end of phase 1, the highwalls have been graded to a slope of <br />31-1: IV or flatter. <br />Reve¢etation: <br />Tamarisk (salt cedar) trees are present within phase 1 and phase 3 on the pit floors. The Tamarisk has become <br />established. This is a problem for failure to employ weed control methods for a state listed noxious weed species within <br />the permitted area, and to reduce the spread of weeds to nearby areas as required by Section 3.1.10 (6) of the rule. This is <br />cited as a problem in the inspection report, and must be corrected by June 9, 2014. There was some plant growth on the <br />stockpiles and very little vegetation growth elsewhere in the disturbed area. The growth in the disturbed area appeared to <br />be volunteer vegetation, comprised of grasses and annual weeds. <br />Sediment Control: <br />There was no evidence of excessive erosion (rills, gullies, or sediment fans). <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.