Laserfiche WebLink
• (Page 2) <br />• MINE ID # OR PROSPE TING ID # H-&5-0o3 <br />INSPECTION DATE lQ~,~Q~j <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS <br />This inspection was conducted in order to monitor the compliance of the ~peration with the <br />requirements of State Statutes, Rules and the conditions of the permit. Th site was inactive <br />at the time of the inspection. Mr. Joseph Freund represented the operagor, Running Creek <br />Ranch, during the inspection, <br />There was an acceptable ID sign posted for the operation. <br />The operation was originally permitted as a 110 in 1985 and converted to a 112 in 1988.The <br />access/haul road for the operation is not indicated to be part of the ap roved permit area <br />but to be a pre-existing ranch road not significantly improved for the m~ning operation. <br />Mr. Freund identified boundary markers for the 30 acre permit area as being fences on the <br />east, west and south sides and the access road to the north. This is, however, somewhat in <br />conflict with the Exhibit E-Maps in the approved conversion application w}~ich indicate that <br />the boundaries of the approved 112 permit area coincide with those of the Toughly rectangular <br />9.9 acre area of the previous 110 permit (adjacent to and immediately west) of a pre-existing <br />7 acre pond) and then follow the outline of the remainder of the 27 acre p~nd proposed to be <br />developed by the mining operation. While the west and south boundaries of he old 110 permit <br />area might be marked by the fences indicated by Mr. Freund, the curving boundaries of the <br />remainder of the approved 30 acre permit area are not so marked. Althou h such boundaries <br />would be difficult to mark, marking is required by Rule 3.1.12 (b). If exc vation of the pond <br />continues beyond current pond margins to the north, east or south, the remainder of the <br />proposed 27 acre boundary must be marked to ensure that mining disturbance does not exceed <br />the amount permitted. At this time, however, the total area actually disturbed by the <br />operation is quite small, well within the marked permit area and with its reclamation <br />adequately provided for by the financial warranty. <br />The most recent mining at the site has taken place on the western margin of the existing 7 <br />acre pond and created a small embayment in that margin. There are sizable :stockpiles of sand <br />and darker material, identified as topsoil, located immediately west of ~he embayment. The <br />topsoil stockpile is somewhat irregular in shape and not vegetated. Mr. Freund indicated that <br />the topsoil was not intended for reclamation use in the immediate futur~; so it should be <br />stabilized to preserve the resource. If to be stabilized by vegetation, t})e stockpile should <br />be shaped accordingly. The lack of an effort to stabilize the stockpile of topsoil is a <br />compliance issue that will be included on Pave 3 of this report. <br />c <br />As noted by previous inspectors, the shoreline of the pond created by recent mining efforts <br />does not meet minimum performance standards for a permanent pond, i.e.,3:1 slopes from a <br />point 5 feet above to 10 feet below the margins of the pond. Currently the pond margins are <br />at or near 1:1 slopes within the area exposed. Grading of the pond marg ns to a 3:1 slope <br />must be completed in order for the Division to consider approval of any uture request for <br />release of reclamation responsibility and bond. <br />Cc: <br />I & E Contact Address <br />^ CE <br />NAME Mr. Joseph Freund ^ BL <br />OPERATOR Running Creek Ranch ^ FS <br />STREET 15460 E. Batavia Dr. ^ HW <br />CITY/STATE/ZIP Aurora, CO 80011_ ^ HMWMD (CH) <br /> <br />CERTIFIED MAIL NO. I`iol la<< Sad. ^ sE <br />RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED <br />