ENFORCE26105

• Permit No: C1981042
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 6/12/1987
• Doc Name: ARNESS MCGRIFFIN RECLAMATION BOND FILE 77-3-UG & C-81-042
• From: PETER V. OCONNOR
• To: MIKE SAVAGE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
~T,~TE 0= ~OL~>>~,~~~J
. ~~-
'`~ie~•,
ROy FOmel. Guvern of %~~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MINED t_AND RECLAM~4TION DIVISION
DAVID C. SHELTON, Director
DATE: June 12, 1987
C
/~~ ,\ oC
~:~,,
T0: Mike Savage \
FROM: Peter O'Connore /
RE: ARNESS-Mc GRIFFIN R/ECLAMATION BOND; FILE 77-3-UG (AND C-81-042)
As discussed at the meeting on Wednesday, we are both frustrated over the lack
of progress made towards reclaiming this site. Our attempts to get a viable
reclamation plan which, in turn, would allow for reclamation of the site have
been entirely fruitless to date. This has occurred primarily because of a
lack of cooperation on the part of Mr. Sam Arness. Therefore, our primary
alternative is bond forfeiture.
The purpose of this memorandum is two-fold: discussion of bond forfeiture
proceedings; and, documentation to support pursuing bond forfeiture.
I. Proceedings
The only permit issued for the Arness-McGriffin site was under the
Minerals Law (C.R.S. 34-32-101 et seq.). This permit was issued in
October 1977 after a bond (certificate of deposit) was posted for
$13,700.00. This permit expired on August 15, 1981 due to failure by
Arness- McGriffin to obtain a permit under the Coal Law (C.R.S.
34-33-101 et seq.). The $13,700.00 bond still exists and is the one
suhject to potential bond forfeiture proceedings.
Since the bond was posted for a permit issued under the auspices of the
Minerals Law, I believe the bond forfeiture procedures outlined in the
Minerals Law and regulations promulgated thereunder should be followed
rather than the Coal Law's procedures. Therefore, the following
discussion highlights the applicable portions from Pule 7 of the Mineral
=rules ane Regulations.
in order for the Board io forfeit a pond, ;.he Hoard must find gnat one or
more of four circumstances exist. Based on a review of this file, I
believe two of these four circumstances exist (Rule 7.8 (a)(1) and (2)):
(1) The Ooerator has violated a cease and desist order entered
pursuant to Section 32-32-124 and, if corrective action eras
proposed in such order, has failed to comolete such corrective
action, although ample time to have done so has elapsed.
(2) The Operator is in default under his Performance 4!arranty and
has failed to cure s:tch defaults, although he has keen given
written notice thereof and has had ample time to cure such
default.
423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 Tel. [phone]