INSPEC08656

• Permit No: M1977344
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• From: DMG
• To: Holcim ‎(US)‎ Inc.
• Inspection Date: 10/10/2002
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(Page 2)
MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-1877-'~aa
INSPECTION DATE: in-in-m INSPECTOR=S INITIALS: inn
OBSERVATIONS
and Tim Dillie represented the Division.
The flow of Bear Creek iust down stream from highway 120 and the permit area was observed. The water
was clear and flowing at approximately 1-2 cubic feet per second.
One of the primary changes proposed in the amendment application is the diversion of Bear Creek from a
point at it's entrance onto the permit area to a point on a natural drainage about 800 feet upstream from
it's confluence with the Arkansas River. There was no flow in the creek where it enters the permit area.
Ms. Abbott explained that the creek only flows at that point when people upstream are irrigating crops or
when there is a storm event of a magnitude sufficient to cause the stream to flow. She explained that the
stream is a gaining stream and that around water surfacing in the stream bed further downstream causes it
to flow in lower reaches through the permit area.
Ms. Abbott said that the Penrose sewage treatment system has been leaking to the Bear Creek channel and
that repairs were being made by the system operator.
The Bear Creek channel was observed upstream and downstream of a haul road crossing constructed as a
result of technical revision No. 7 (sevenl. Wetland areas including cattails and riparian areas with willows
were observed. The wetland areas alone the creek have been approved to be eliminated and replaced
under a Corps of Engineers 404 permit. Tim Dillie was concerned that the crossing fill material used to
construct the culvert type road crossing may contribute sediment to the creek during storm events. The
creek, at this location, was running clear. It appeared that the flow was about 1-2 cfs. It was discussed
that, since AM-1 proposes the elimination of the Bear Creek drainage in the permit area by mining related
activities, a sediment control facility should be included. The Division suggested a sediment pond in the
area where the creek now leaves the permit area. Since a live stream exists and sediment pond cleaning
may be a problem, Holcim may want to propose other methods of sediment control to prevent off site
damage in the form of sedimentation of the creek between thepermit affected lands area and the Arkansas
River.
The Sediment control facilities for the west portion of the guarrv were observed. They appeared to have
been cleaned of sediment and have adequate capacity.
The site of monitoring well No. 6 was observed, primarily to familiarize everyone with its location in relation
to areas affected by mining. Ms. Abbott reminded the group that the well was not completed through the
limestone to the Codell Sandstone. The well should be completed to the Codell if it is to be used to
demonstrate up gradient water quality.
The location of monitoring well No. 30 was observed. It is located on a narrow strip of land between the
cut 8 CKD disposal area and a new CKD disposal area started immediately to the south. The well appeared
to be undisturbed. The area had not been mined through. However, due to the proximity of blasting for
limestone extraction. it should be determined whether the well has been damaged and whether it is useable
for future water guality monitoring. In the new disposal area, a 10 feet lift of overburden backfill had been
placed on a portion of the pit floor and a thin laver of CKD had been placed on too of the backfill. Most of
the CKD had been buried with another lift of backfill. Ms. Abbott stated that only one laver of CKD will be