My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-09-19_INSPECTION - M2007006
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M2007006
>
2011-09-19_INSPECTION - M2007006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:43:14 PM
Creation date
9/20/2011 7:42:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2007006
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
9/19/2011
Doc Name
Insp Rpt
From
DRMS
To
Fremont Paving and Redi-Mix, Inc.
Inspection Date
8/30/2011
Email Name
JLE
AJW
TAK
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.
/
7
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
OBSERVATIONS <br />PERMIT #: M- 2007 -006 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: JLE <br />INSPECTION DATE: August 30, 2011 <br />This was a monitoring inspection of the Ted Franciscotti Pit #1; DRMS file no. M- 2007 -006, operated by Fremont Paving <br />and Redi -Mix, Inc. This site is located approximately 7 miles north northwest of Walsenburg, Colorado in Huerfano <br />County. I, Jared Ebert of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) conducted the inspection. <br />Several messages were left for Ms. Denise Gonzales of Fremont Paving and Redi -mix, Inc. to inform them of the <br />inspection. However, no response was received and no one from the operation accompanied me on the inspection. <br />This is a 282 acre 112c mining operation. The site is split into 7 phases; the current disturbance appears to be contained <br />in the Phase 1 area. The Phase 1 area encompasses historic mining disturbances and previously permitted mine sites <br />that have been terminated (M- 1997 -042 and M- 1998 -081). Since the permit was issued, it appears the Operator has <br />only mined a small area in the northeast corner of the site based on the 2009 Annual Report. Overall, the site does not <br />appear to be very different than how it was described in the 112c permit application. Several excavated basins exist at <br />the site. The highwalls of these basins were measured and mapped using a Trimble GeoXT GPS unit. A map of the <br />Divisions findings is enclosed with this report. The majority of the highwalls are approximately 10 to 15 feet high with <br />1:1 horizontal to vertical ratio slopes to near vertical slopes. Several stockpiles of material are in place that are various <br />shapes and sizes. <br />The north central portion of the Phase 1 area contains an old office /scale house and scale. A shallow pit basin is located <br />to the west of these structures. This excavation appears to have been mined in various directions creating an odd <br />shaped basin. While in this area, the landowners son Anthony Franciscotti approached me. He indicated this area had <br />historically been mined for gold. Old mining and processing equipment owned by the landowner are in place in this <br />portion of the permit area. To the east and south of this basin is the location of previously permitted mine sites. This <br />area contains two deep pit basins. The slopes of these pits have been graded to a 3:1 ratio and revegetated. The <br />vegetation established in these pits are very sparse. According to the 112c permit application; these basins will be <br />partially or completely filled with reject /waste material from the future processing operation at the site. <br />Two problems were observed at the site. First, the mine entrance sign was not in place at the entrance to the permit <br />area. The Operator will need to replace the mine entrance sign. Second, a significant infestation of Russian Olive and <br />Tamarisk trees have invaded the Phase 1 area. The Colorado State University Cooperative Extension commented on the <br />Tamarisk issue in a letter dated June 19, 2008 according to the Division's files. Their letter recommended various <br />treatments for the Tamarisk trees. A weed control plan was not included in the original permitting process. The Division <br />will require to Operator to submit a weed control plan as a technical revision to the approved reclamation plan. The <br />weed control plan must include: <br />a.) A list of potential species of invasive weeds that may occur on the site (Russian Olive, Tamarisk, Canada Thistle, Leafy <br />Spurge...etc.) <br />b.) A description of the various control measures that will be employed for the weed species such as mechanical, <br />chemical, biological control or a combination of the three methods. <br />c.) Submit a monitoring plan that describes how often the operator will monitor the site for noxious weeds (monthly, bi- <br />monthly etc.) and what action will occur if noxious weed are observed. <br />d.) A post treatment monitoring plan to determine control effectiveness. <br />e.) A commitment that the weed control plan will be implemented for the life of the permit. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.