GENERAL50392

• Permit No: C1983058
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 1/13/1993
• Doc Name: Midterm Review Findings Document
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
131 ]Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
January 13, 1993
Mr. Chris Reed
Twin Pines Investment Limited Partnership
1805 County Road 86
Rockvale, CO 81244
Re: Mid-Term Review of the Twin Pines Mine; Permit No. C-83-058
Dear Mr. Reed:
pF.~~[~
,~e
Ne~~
Q
~+
• ~ ~e'!6
Ro}' Romer
Governor
M¢hael B. Long
Division Director
Enclosed is the Division's mid-term review. The review is in fulfillment of Rules 2.08.3,
2.06.2(9), 2.06.3(4), 2.06.5(3), 2.06.7151 and 3.02.2(4).
The mid-term review consisted of reviewing the permit application, stipulation responses,
revisions and any supplemental information, as well as information from field inspections
and annual monitoring reports. The main purpose of the review was to identify any areas
of the permit application that will need to be revised or modified to ensure compliance and
reflect the current status of the mine. Some of the questions seek a resolution to existing
stipulations or request incorporation of resolution into the permit application. Other
questions seek to address the permit deficiencies noted in the July 1992 OSM oversight
inspection.
The enclosed document contains our mid-term review, a listing of revisions in the last five
years, a summary of the status of stipulations and the results of our performance bond
review. Any responses to this mid-term review should be in the form of a technical
revision to the permit application.
The Division has identified four significant permit concerns. One, examination of the
current mine map suggests that Twin Pines Investment Limited Partnership mined outside
the permit boundaries in Area 2 East. Responses to this question will certainly have
ramifications as a potential enforcement action. Two, the well permit required by
Stipulation 5 still appears to be outstanding. Three, the Division appears to have
overlooked a permit condition in failing to process the waiver associated with structures
located within 100 feet of a county road (see Question 1 11. Four, the previous approval
of a reclamation plan which includes a highwall appears to have been flawed in accordance
with our current regulations. It is anticipated that the highwall regulations will change in
the next eight to eighteen months to accommodate mines like Twin Pines. Please note
that the State would be unable to approve a bond release prior to the modification of these