Laserfiche WebLink
6/1212014 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail-M-1992-016 Amendment 3 and Surety Reduction Info <br /> isSTATE <br /> T o ADC) Cazier - DNR, Tim <tim.cazier@state.co.us> <br /> M-1992-016 Amendment 3 and Surety Reduction Info <br /> Cazier - DNR, Tim <tim.cazier@state.co.us> Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:47 PM <br /> To: Tom Smith <tom@rm materials.com> <br /> Tom, <br /> As I mentioned during our phone call on Friday (5/23/13), the Division is ready to approve the Amendment 3 <br /> revision. Also, as we discussed, because the disturbed area is to be doubled to 200 acres at one time, the bond <br /> would double from that for the currently approved 100 acres of disturbed area. However, it is clear from my <br /> 8/20/2013 inspection that RMMA can claim credit for significant completed reclamation efforts. <br /> There are two vehicles available to Operators to request a reduction in financial warranty based on reclamation <br /> work completed: <br /> 1) Surety Reduction —The best use of this is for areas where significant reclamation work has been <br /> accomplished, but the area is not ready for release. For example, earthwork such as backfilling or <br /> flattening highwall slopes has been completed, but vegetation has not been re-established. <br /> 2) Acreage Release—The best use of this vehicle is for some areas within the permit boundary <br /> have completed reclamation to the point of vegetation being established and the Operator wishes to <br /> remove the area(s)from the permit boundary. This is the option RMMA asked for in June of 2013 <br /> and the Division denied because not all 110 acres were releasable. <br /> I've reviewed the file and my August 20, 2013 inspection report and believe these are the two options to reduce <br /> the bond at this time (after the increased bond resulting from the pending amendment approval). Assuming <br /> RMMA wants to remove the areas from the permit boundary permanently, the acreage release is the <br /> recommended method. The request would be similar to what RMMA requested in June 2013, except that the <br /> areas the Division determined were not releasable should NOT be included in the new request. I've attached <br /> Figures I and II from the inspection report for reference, plus a suggested "re-delineated" map of Area 2, where the <br /> sediment pond south of the processing area is located. Assuming the reclaimed condition of the areas for which <br /> release was previously requested have not deteriorated, the Division recommends requesting an acreage release <br /> for Areas 1, 2A, 2C, 3, 4, 5, C (if delineated separately from Area B), and D. Areas 2A, 213, and 2C are shown in <br /> the "re-delineated" map of Area 2; all other areas are shown in Figures I & II. If the equipment has been removed <br /> from Area B (Figure II) and no reveg effort is required, then RMMA could include Area B in the request as well. <br /> Alternatively, RMMA could re-delineate Area B such that the area where the equipment was stored is isolated, <br /> but not in a "donut hole". The Division needs to avoid the donut hole scenario where an area requiring additional <br /> reclamation can only be accessed through a released or non-permit area. So, please keep that in mind if re- <br /> delineation is the approach taken. I have also attached a form for an acreage release request. If you would like, <br /> RMMA could send me a draft version of the re-delineated maps for me to review before a formal request is made. <br /> If RMMA does not wish to remove any or all of these areas from the permit boundary, then a Surety Reduction <br /> should be requested. There is no form for this type of revision, but Rule 4.14.1(2) states what is required: <br /> https://mail.google.corTVmail/u/0/?ui=2&k-5fO9c8c280&\iew=pt&as to=tom%40rmrnaterials.com&as_sizeoperator=s_sl&as_sizeunit=s_smb&as_subset=all&as... 1/2 <br />