GENERAL36859

• Permit No: M1984001
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 10/23/1996
• Doc Name: PHONE CONVERSATION WITH JOHN SCHMAHL AND ALAN WORKMAN ON 10/23/96
• From: DMG
• To: FILE SURFACE ROCK PIT PN M-84-001 MESA CNTY
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii •
999
•
STATE, OF
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Deparimenl nl Natural Resnurce5
U 1 3 Sherman A ,Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: 13031 A66-356'
FA.C: 13031 832-81 O6
[)fib+`v :: r i
~ ~, _..
~~. ~ , c =
DATE: October 23, 1996
T0: File, Surface Rock Pit, Permit No. M-84-001, Mesa County
FROM: Wally Erickson
RE: Phone Conversation with John Schmahl and Alan Workman
I~~
DEPARTMENT" OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
lames 5. Lochhead
Execu[i.e Director
m~chael B. Long
1 0/^,ip/~{yGn Director
At approximately 8:30 am, 10/23/96, I received a call from John Schmah ,operator of
the Surface Rock Pit. Mr. Schmahl stated that he had received my "deva toting letter"
and inquired why DMG was attempting to run him out of business. Mr. S hmahl stated
that he was referring to DMG 10/10/96 bond calculation, totalling 545,8 0. Mr. Schmahl
stated that he was the only rip rap operation in the immediate area and st ted that DMG
was attempting to assist an unknown competitor by running Mr. Schmahl out of business
by calculating exaggerated reclamation costs. Mr. Schmahl stated that D G was
assisting an unknown competitor in Dolores since DMG calculated equip nt mob/demob
from Dolores rather than Grand Junction. Mr. Schmahl stated that DMG 0/10/96 bond
calculation had already scared off two potential successor operators.
I responded that DMG 10/10/96 reclamation cost calculations were based upon
requirements of the approved reclamation plan and observations made by myself during
the 9/18/96 inspection. I stated that I would recalculate the reclamation ost upon
receipt of additional information from the operator regarding reclamation t sks. I stated
that any errors in the calculations would be corrected, if such errors are f und. I stated
that DMG was not attempting to favor any operator over another and that DMG 10/10/96
bond calculation represented current reclamation costs. I attempted to co municate that
fair competition resulted from DMG regulatory actions and that DMG did n t dabble in
promoting unfair competition. I stated that equipment mob/demob costs ad been
calculated from Grand Junction and that the reference to Dolores was in rror. I stated
that I would provide a correct mob/demob worksheet, verifying mob/dem b from Grand
Junction.
Mr. Schmahl requested to approach the CMLR Board, during the Novembe 13 - 14, 1996
Board meeting, regarding the 10/10/96 DMG bond calculation. Mr. Schm hl requested
copy of application for SO and copy of the Act, Rules & Regulations.
At approximately 11:45 am, 10/23/96, I received call from Alan Workman Bray &
Company Reality. Mr. Workman requested copy of DMG 10/10/96 bond alculations and
copy of application for SO.