Brandon Neil, the mine safety program manager at the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, opened a stakeholder meeting to walk through proposed updates to the state’s tourist‑mine regulations and to answer operator questions.

DRMS staff said the headline change in the draft is a reworked definition of “tourist mine” that mirrors Colorado law: a “nonproducing mine not regulated by the federal government that is open to the general public or tours.” Jason Musick, an active‑mine program director, said the change corrects an inconsistency between the current regulations and state statute and is intended to improve clarity and safety. “This definition is now mirroring state law statutes,” Musick said.

Operators immediately pressed on what the definition means in practice. Several owners and operators said they understood the division’s public‑safety goal but warned the rule as drafted would prevent tourist‑mine operators from prospecting or converting to production in the future without a difficult regulatory step. Kent Sarat of the Capital Prize, whose operation dates to the 1860s, said seasonal or spatial separation of tours and production, rather than an outright prohibition, would better preserve historic sites and owners’ future options.

Attorney Jeff Yeh, who advised DRMS on the draft, told attendees the rules are forward‑looking and not retroactive. “These rules are not going to apply retroactively,” Yeh said. He added that current dual‑permit holders would be allowed to remain grandfathered so long as they continue to comply with both sets of rules and board policy 20.2. “These rules don’t pull your permit. You are grandfathered in, essentially,” Yeh told one operator who raised the concern.

DRMS staff cited Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) language as the statutory basis for the change (staff referenced CRS §34‑20‑102(12) during the discussion) and encouraged stakeholders who believe a different interpretation is justified to submit written comments with legal citations and operational detail. Staff said they are prepared to consider clarifying language or administrative policy to preserve the ability for some forms of nonproducing exploration (for example, NOI notices) while protecting public safety.

Operators asked DRMS to give them more time to review the changes and to consult counsel; several suggested a 30–60 day window and at least one additional stakeholder workshop. DRMS signaled it would ask Director Michael Cunningham to continue the formal rulemaking hearing that had been noticed for Nov. 19 so stakeholders can meet and provide consolidated written comments. Stakeholders on the call agreed to convene a separate industry meeting to coordinate comments and tentatively picked a follow‑up Zoom for Monday the 17th at 9 a.m.

What happens next: DRMS said it will consider written submissions and possible narrow revisions before reconvening the formal hearing. The division emphasized the safety rationale for the clarification while inviting specific statutory or factual information that might justify a different regulatory approach.