2010-11-04_INSPECTION - M2009076

• Permit No: M2009076
• IBM Index Class Name: INSPECTION
• Doc Date: 11/4/2010
• Doc Name: Summary of Oct. 27th Site Visit
• From: Venture Resources, Inc.
• To: DRMS
• Inspection Date: 10/27/2010
• Email Name: JLE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

October 31, 2010
Venture Resources, Inc.
PO Box 1974 [phone]
Idalio Springs, CO 8o452 Fax: [phone]
venthu•eresources(n•att.net
1V
CO Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety <0\1 0 4 2010
1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Divis;ul -s t? ieRTi811t5J11'
DyKer, CO 80203 4.0 gning W?d p ly
ttn: Jared Ebert
RE: M-2009-076 Application
Subject: Summary of Oct. 27`h site visit by DRMS and associated proposed engineering solutions.
Dear Mr. Ebert:
In a letter dated October 13, 2010, Venture Resources requested that DRMS representatives visit the site of our
proposed project to discuss, among other things, potential engineering solutions to further satisfy tailings
impoundment stability concerns which the DRMS had previously set forth in the September 8s` DRMS Second
Adequacy Review and in a similar letter on October 10`b. We would like to thank you and Tony Waldron for making
the trip to our project site the morning of October 27t' to visit with Patrick Maher (VR President and Certified
Geologist), Bruce Humphries (VR regulatory consultant), and myself
We feel that this site visit was important and that we were successful in fulfilling the objectives we had outlined in
our October 13`s request letter, namely:
1. Demonstrating to the DRMS the very remote, non-populated, non-developed, and limited hazard vicinity of
this proposed project. It was critical to witness this fast hand because a major topic in the Second
Adequacy Review (as presented to us on page one, items #1-2 of that Review) was a discussion regarding
"minimum acceptable safety factor[s]" and stability issues arising from earthquakes. We feel that the
"minimum acceptable safety factor[s]" the DRMS has prescribed (saturated slimes static FS to equal 1.5
and saturated slimes seismic FS to equal 1.1) is extraordinary and excessive once one considers the actual
proposed site location.
We feel that this proposed impoundment relates to a "Low Hazard Dam" situation as defined by State
Engineer Standards (Rule 2-CCR 402-14.2.14.3) - "'Low Hazard Dam' is a dam for which loss of human
life is not expected, and significant damage to structures and public facilities as defined for a `Significant
Hazard' dam is not expected from failure of the dam." Asa Colorado Professional Engineer it is my job to
take into consideration risk and threat levels to life, property and the environment and incorporate that into
a safe design.
2. Demonstrating to the DRMS that this site is already impacted by decade's old historic, abandoned mine
waste rock and that this proposed project will actually provide for responsible reclamation and abatement of
acid mine water runoff. The DRMS should now be able to more fully understand the appeal we have made
in our permit work to consider Rule 6.4.20(e) which states:
The Board shall also consider current or pre-existing conditions and the degree to
which the proposed plan would provide for net improvements in the protection of
human health, property, or the environment.
Page 1 of 3