My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE28066
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE28066
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:29 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:49:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981039
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/28/1991
From
OSM
To
MLRD
Violation No.
TD1991020116004TV3
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Steven G. Renner 2 <br />until a sufficient amount of reclamation was completed equal to <br />the amount of band the permittee was unable to post. Following <br />forfeiture of the $50,000 for residual reclamation, the permittee <br />and owners and controllers of the permittee would be entered into <br />the Applicant/Violator System (AVS) blocking the issuance of any <br />future permits. <br />Colorado Rule 3.04.1{2) provides that declaration of forfeiture <br />may be withheld if the permittee agrees to a compliance schedule <br />to correct violations of the permit or to comply with bond <br />conditions. I concur with your position that this rule is an <br />acceptable mechanism for settling the issues in this case. The <br />Colorado provision cited by the AFO in the TDN, pertaining to the <br />sixty perca,^.t bond release limit, i.s irapf+licable under these <br />circumstances because matters relating to the release of bond <br />were subsumed under the bond forfeiture compliance agreement <br />provision. This is basically a bond forfeiture action controlled <br />by the bond forfeiture provisions as part of the compliance <br />agreement in order to enable the current operator to complete his <br />reclamation obligations at this site. Nothing in the Colorado <br />bond forfeiture regulations or the Federal counterpart to those <br />regulations precludes a regulatory authority from incorporating <br />such a bond reduction mechanism when negotiating the terms of a <br />compliance agreement. By entering into the compliance agreement <br />rather than forfeiting an inadequate amount of bond and <br />contracting the reclamation to a third party, your agency has <br />avoided a reclamation liability of over $125,000 and has been <br />able to achieve a greater degree of reclamation than would have <br />been possible were the bond forfeited while retaining the <br />permittee in the AVS block through actual forfeiture of the <br />remaining $50,000. <br />Based on the foregoing, I find that the actions taken by your <br />agency to secure reclamation at the Grassy Gap Mine are within <br />the discretion afforded your agency under the Colorado program. <br />Accordingly, I hereby reverse the determination of the AFO <br />Director. <br />Sincerely, <br />l~S~~~~~~~~~~-~ -' <br />W. Hord Tipton <br />Deputy Director <br />Operations and Technical Services <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.