INSPEC01514

• Permit No: M1978268
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 8/13/2001
• Doc Name: MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 8/7/2001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• (Page 21 •
MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1978-268
INSPECTION DATE 8/7/01 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO
OBSERVATIONS
This partial inspection was performed as part of the Division's monitoring of Construction Materials 112 permits, and in
response to the operator's request for a joint inspection. A time was arranged for the operator, BLM personnel, and this
inspector to meet at the site. The operator named on page one, as well as Lynn Lewis and Donna Knox of BLM, were
present throughout the inspection.
The site lies between two minor ephemeral drainages, which roughly define the north and south permit boundaries. The
permit boundaries are set back from the drainageway centerlines by 50 feet, which was intended to help protect the
surface drainage system from adverse impacts due to mining activity. The setback has resulted in no disturbance to the
drainageway itself, but is also resulting in an unmined ridge separating each of the drainageways from the bowl-shaped
pit. The purpose of this inspection, and the primary issue discussed onsite, was the possible modification of the permit
area to allow the removal of the perimeter ridges.
It was agreed that the main issue involved with such a change would be the new surface drainage patterns. Approving
such a change requires that sufficient information be provided for review, including projected surface runoff volumes from
the pit and the contributing natural drainageways, and sediment control concerns.
Most of the permitted acreage is affected, and continued operations under the current plan will affect the remainder of the
permitted area. This precludes the opportunity to "exchange" unaffected, permitted areas for additional, new areas under
the Division's abbreviated process. As such, a modification to the existing plan which involves addition of new acreage
to the permitted area will involve a permit amendment. If the operator needs an amendment application form, one may
be requested from this office.
Other items observed and discussed onsite included the revegetation and weed control of the upper pit slope. The area
revegetated has not been expanded since the last inspection, but it has continued to become established, and weed control
continues. The slope directly below the revegetated portion appears to be nearly the correct gradient, but is still rough and
not topsoiled yet.
The file contains a statement from the operator that the insufficient topsoil reserves onsite will be augmented by importing
soil from offsite. The operator must ensure that weed seed is not imported to the permit area in contaminated soil.
There were two stockpiles of clay overburden material on the middle portion of the slopes. These present a material
handling problem for the operator, since they are on the slope to be affected by future mining and there is so limited an
area available to store them. It was suggested that using it as a subsoil or growth medium on the upper slopes should be
considered or studied.
The final item inspected was the stormwater control. The pit floor presently receives all runoff from the slope. During most
conditions, all meteoric water percolates into the ground without leaving the permit area. Though the floor is not entirely
level, the entrance to the pit floor at the SW corner is somewhat higher and this acts as a control structure for higher
volumes of runoff or when the ground is more saturated. The height of this small hump, however, may not be adequate,
if there are occasional discharges. Any current discharge of runoff is likely transporting sediment offsite. A sump on the
floor and/or a diversion ditch at the toe of the slope could assist in management of runoff from within the pit. It was
mentioned that there are small erosional features on the access road below the pit also, which point to the need for better
controls. The operator must ensure that the site be designed and maintained as a "no~lischarge" site, or a discharge permit
from WOCD will be required. The operator stated that such earthwork will be performed promptly, At this time there is
no problem, but afollow-up inspection later this season will be done to verify the adequacy of any new controls installed.
If there has been no attempt to remedy the lack of such control structures, this topic could become a problem.
The operator was aware that, if the changes to the affected area as discussed above are implemented, increased runoff
and sediment controls will be necessary from the start.
No further items were observed or discussed, and there were no problems at this time. All responses or questions about
this inspection report should be directed to this inspector at the Division's Durango Field Office. The address is: Division
of Minerals and Geology, 701 Camino del Rio, Room 125, Durango, Colorado 81301; telephone [phone], or fax
970/247-5104.
-~
..-