Laserfiche WebLink
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ STATE OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />7313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />FA x: 303 832~810fi <br />OF'~~[p <br />C°~ 'fs <br />Ne <br />+~r ~ <br />.` . <br />~ le'l6' <br />Roy Romer, <br />Gwemor <br />Michael B. Long, <br />Division Director <br />DATE: August 11, 1992 <br />T0: Steve Renner and Dan Hernandez <br />FROM: Cathy Begej ~~,'i~'/,% ~-; <br />RE: Joint Oversight Inspection, Twin Pines, C-83-05d, July 14-15, 1992 <br />I inspected Twin Pines No. 2 with Russ Porter, OSM-AFO for a joint oversight <br />inspection on July 14-15, 1992. Mr. Porter had stopped by the county <br />courthouse prior to the inspection and noted that he could not find a copy of <br />the permit application. The operator and I planted a seed of doubt in his <br />mind that he had gone to the wrong office; I don't know that the permit . <br />application is there, but note that our Statute requires it. <br />The records check was e..xtensive. The AFO continues to make an issue about <br />insurance timeliness, limitations, mine identification and cancellation <br />period. They are also asking to see a copy of the bond instrument. The <br />certification on a pond ~.aas called into question because the mine had a "copy" <br />of the certification and the P.E. had used an ambossed seal which 'adn't <br />xero.<ed yell. The OS4 inspection report recorded compaction and moisture <br />pen.entages from the most recent waste pile certification. He reviewed the <br />stipulations to ensure that none ,yore outstanding. <br />Mr. ?crier's int?rest during the field inspection focused on compliance of <br />roads, ponds and ditches wit. maps and plans found in the permit application. <br />In addition, he was pre-occupied with perimeter markers. <br />During the records check he happened to read the section of the permit <br />appiication on post-mining land use. The permit indicated that Twin Pines' <br />goai in reclamation was to enhance the hydrrlogic balance in the area and make <br />the site physically safe. Our regulations (4.1b> indicate that the site <br />should be returned to conditions which support the or?-mining land use or a <br />better land USe. Thli 5'. to `.JdS an abandone0 Str1D mine and Undergf pond wdit2 <br />dumb to Twin Pines' permitting. I successfuiiy argued that our Findings <br />Document nrting that the Ire - and pest-min;ng land use was our- interpretation <br />of their commitment to re .urn the site to rangeland and served as a permit <br />condition in compliance with the regulatlcns. <br />r;~g; ?, n <br />4443E <br />