ENFORCE21945

• Permit No: C1981039
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 5/27/1991
• Doc Name: TEN-DAY NOTICE 91-02-116-04 GRASSY GAD MINE FN C-81-039
• From: MLRD
• To: OSM
• Violation No.: TD1991020116004TV3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1 iiium
iiiiiiii
~ iii
..

MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman S[., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 666-3567
FA x: 303 832-8106
May 27, 1991
Mr, Robert Hagen, Director
Albuquerque Field Office
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
625 Silver Avenue, S.W., Suite 310
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
RE: Ten-Day Notice 91-02-116-04, Grassy Gap Mine (File C-81-0391
Dear Mr. Hagen:
OF'~~rp
aF'_s ~ 97
i
Ne~~
• `~+vs~
~ tg 76 ~
Ray Ramer,
Gwemor
Fretl R. Barra,
Division Director
On May 20, 1991, we received notice from OSMRE, Albuquerque Field Office, that
our response to the referenced Ten-Day Notice was determined to be arbitrary
and capricious, and thus inappropriate. Pursuant to 30 CFR
842.11(b)(1)(iii)(A), the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division requests an
informal review of the AFO determination by the Deputy Director, Operations
and Technical Services. The basis for our request are outlined below.
On June 27, 1990, MLRD and the Rockcastle Company, permittee of the Grassy Gap
Mine, entered into a compliance agreement. This agreement was entered into
partially as a result of Notice of Violation C-90-007. This Violation was
issued for failure to submit adequate reclamation bond as required. The
abatement date was established as May 16, 1990. Rockcastle indicated to MLRD
that it was financially impossible to submit the bond. When the abatement
date lapsed, the Division determined that two alternatives existed in the
context of accomplishing bond forfeiture in accordance with Colorado Rule
3.04, The alternatives available to the Division were to revoke the
insufficient bond and pursue civil action against an insolvent operator, or to
enter into a compliance agreement as per Rule 3.04,1(21, prior to forfeiting
the performance bond.
Rule 3.04.1(2) allows for the development of a compliance agreement in lieu of
bond forfeiture in order to correct permit violations or to ensure compliance
with bond conditions. This Rule reflects the intent of 30 CFR 800,50(2)(1).
MLRD recognized that bond forfeiture would increase the State's reclamation
liability in this circumstance. Therefore, we entered into the attached
agreement with the specific intent to minimize the State liability. The
compliance agreement was the only vehicle available to achieve this goal and
maintain compliance with applicable statutes. The agreement which we have
entered into achieves the goals and intent of 30 CFR 800.50121, Rule 3.04,2(2)
and fully complies with all provisions of Rule 3.04,1(2)(a, b, c).
STATE OF COLORADO