INSPEC27973

• Permit No: M1973007SG
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 12/1/2000
• Doc Name: MEMO INFORMATION MINERALS PROGRAM DANIELS SAND PIT 2
• From: DMG
• To: JIM STEVENS & BERHAN KEFFELEW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIII III •
999
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (3031 86G-3567
FAX: [phone]
•
STATE OF COLORADO
MEMO
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
INFORMATION, MINERALS PROGRAM Bill Owens
Governor
TO: Jim Stevens Ber}tan Keffelew Greg E. Walther
f EKecuUVe Director
/
s Michael B. Long
FROM: HBH /' I, ~ / i Division DircUOr
DATE: December 1, 2000
RE: Daniels Sand Pit #2
I reviewed the materials submitted to me on the Daniels Sand Pi[ #2, the rules and the Ac[. 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 ourjurisdiction. 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 facility 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 [he potential for impacts due
to mining, based on the placement of [he water treatment facility. They have an agreement that
looks to cover their joint 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
that 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 to standards of the Slate 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.