ENFORCE28066 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ ~I I I II I I~ I I~ I~~~ ~I~ sss United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING Reclamation and Enforcement WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 ta~~ PNIDEM~ a- ~ ~ ^ -. 8 19g~ ' ' JUN 2 '' ~ ~~ L. ~J ~~ ~~ . JUL051991 Mr. Steven G. Renner iviinec~ i_ano Coal Program Supervisor ~eciama4ion Division Mined Land Reclamation Division Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Mr. Renner: This is in response to your May 27, 1991, letter requesting informal review of the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) Director's determination that your agency did not take appropriate action with respect to the ten-day notice (TDN) number 91-02-116-4 (Rockcastle Coal Company; Grassy Gap Mine.). The TDN alleges that there has been a failure to maintain the entire bond amount required by the approved permit until such time as a bond release is authorized under Rule 3.03.1(2)(x). That rule limits the amount of bond which can be released to sixty percent of the bond amount when the permittee has successfully completed backfilling, grading, and drainage control in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. In your request for review, you explain that as an alternative to declaring forfeiture of the insufficient amount of bond posted with this permit, thus increasing the State's reclamation liability, your agency exercised its authority under Colorado Rule 3.04.1(2) to enter into a compliance agreement. You maintain that this alternative mode of enforcement meets the language and intent of both the Federal and State program bond forfeiture regulations and that, in the absence of Federal guidance governing such compliance agreements, your agency has relied on its own resources to craft a compliance agreement which was the only mechanism available to reclaim the site and minimize State reclamation liability. The record shows that the compliance agreement (in lieu of bond forfeiture) arose largely as a result of the permittee's inability to post an additional $125,337 performance bond as ordered by the Mined Land Reclamat-.ion E3oard. As part of the reclamation schedule ~ctablist:ec9 under tt+e agreement, a mechanism for prospective bond release and reduction and bend forfeiture was included. Under this mechanism, all bond except an amount of $50,000 wtlictt ~+~ou1d be icrfeited ror. residual maintenance would he returned to tYie permitcee for reclamation completed before and under the agreement, provided, that no bond would be returned