Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br /> Furthermore, the preamble to the bond adjustment provisions of 30 CFR 800.15(c) at 48 <br /> FR 32945 (July 19, 1983) states that: <br /> OSM has not included in the final rule any provision characterizing as an <br /> adjustment any reduction in bond amount for reclamation work performed on <br /> disturbed areas since bond for disturbed areas can only be released or reduced <br /> through the formal release procedures of [30 CFR] 800.40. <br /> To be approved under the bond adjustment provisions of 30 CFR 800.15(c), a proposed <br /> bond reduction must be justified solely upon either changes in the acreage to be affected <br /> (not the acreage remaining to be r cl_e aimed) or a demonstration that the reclamation <br /> cost estimates upon which the current bond amount is based are no longer valid for <br /> reasons other than the performance of reclamation work. Any bond reduction requested <br /> as a result of reclamation work performed must be processed as an application for bond <br /> release under 30 CFR 800.40; the request cannot be approved unless the criteria <br /> specified in 30 CFR 800.40(c) and section 519(c) of SMCRA, or, in Colorado's case, <br /> Colorado Rule 3.03.1(2), are satisfied. The remaining bond amount must meet the <br /> minimum levels established in these program provisions. <br /> Finally, the Field Office questions whether the maximum of bond that may be released <br /> for the subject site under Colorado Rule 3.031(2) should be calculated based on the <br /> $446,680 actually posted or the $572,000 required as a result of the midterm review. <br /> This issue is not addressed in the Federal regulations or their preambles. However, <br /> since the company has closed and reclaimed the mine in lieu of posting the additional <br /> bond, it would appear reasonable to base this calculation on the amount of bond <br /> actually posted. In any case, the amount of bond released must conform to the <br /> percentage limits established in Colorado Rule 3.03.1(2); in addition, the amount <br /> retained must be adequate to cover the cost of having a third party reestablish the <br /> revegetation, as required by Colorado Rule 3.03.1(3). <br /> Please contact Dennis Rice (IFTS 268-2829) with any questions pertaining to this review. <br />