INSPEC12501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (3031 866-3567 FAX: 13031 832.8106 I ~~} ~~~, __ T v~ tsk, MEMO ~~~,'` •~~ ~? „fl ,! ~, D I V l 5! O N O F MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY INFORMATION, MINERALS PROGRAM Bill Owens /,~ f~ Governor TO: Jim Stevens Berhan Keffelew l / f Greg E Watcher Ezecunve Director FROM HBH f ~~)j Michael B. Long Drvia~on Diecor : / DATE: December 1, 2000 RE: Daniels Sand Pit #2 I reviewed the materials submitted to me on the Daniels Sand Pit #2, the [vies and [he Act. It is my belief that the water treatment facility that has been constructed on the mine site and owned by the Schlage Locks Company is outside our jurisdiction. My reading of the Act and Rules is that the protective provisions of these sections apply where an operator will or may impact an existing facility that was in-place at the time of application or amendment submittal. In other words the act protects existing structures at the time of permitting. Anything that occurs after the fact seems to me to be the responsibility of the person constructing the factlity to ensure that the structure Is protected. The provision says that we may deny a permit, not take one away. The situation is different where an operator does not disclose a facility or mines outside the approved affected area and encroaches within 200 feet of some structure. In the first instance, the approved permit is put in jeopardy, and the second is a possible violation. In this case the operator (who is also the landowner) was approached by Schlage for permission to install the water treatment facility. So Schlage was well aware of the potential for impacts due to mining, based on the placement of the water treatment facility. They have an agreement that looks to cover theirjoint activities. If there is a violation of that agreement, they may go to court to have disputes resolved. Schlage is also supposed to move their facilities prior to mining. This is the one area where I believe the state and operator have exposure. I would recommend that the operator submit a TR [hat commits to no mining through the area containing the facilities until the facilities have been "reclaimed" to the extent necessary so as to not result in a liability to the state. For example, any well must be properly plugged according [o standards of the State Engineer prior to mining activity occurring. We must have acceptable documentation as well. I will leave it up to you and Berhan to decide if there are other areas that need "reclamation" prior to disturbance by mining. As always, I would appreciate your thoughts.