REV91759 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

accomplished, assured that sufficient bond was retained for continuing reclamation work and provided for public participation in the release process. We therefore believe the State exercised a reasonable interpretation of its approved program with regard to bond release. As documented in the DMG Final Decisions for these two bond release actions, there was no full release from Phase I liability for disturbed acreage on the two mines where bacl~illing, regrading, and drainage control had not been completed. The only disturbed acreage that received full Phase I liability release was land where backfilling, regrading, and drainage control had been completed. As you note in your letter DMG did release an amount of the bond where structural demolition was accomplished but final grading had not yet been achieved. For these releases the State documented itemized calculations of bond to be released including actual cost amounts for completed or substantially completed facilities demolition and structure removal. DMG also documented that sufficient bond remained to complete all remaining reclamation. The DMG Final Decisions for these two bond release actions contain or incorporate by reference itemized inventories documenting reclamation activities completed, and bond amounts released for the completed reclamation. The Final Decisions document reclamation activities remaining, with calculations demonstrating the bond amounts remaining aze sufficient to co~lete all facilities demolition and structure removal, backfilling, regrading, drainage control, topsoil replacement, and vegetation establishment. The Final Decisions demonstrate remaining bond amounts are sufficient to complete the environmental monitoring required through the applicable liability period. Total Phase I bond amounts released at each mine were within the sixty percent (sixty percent of the total bond amount applicable to disturbed acreage on the pernut) cap applicable to Phase 1 bond release. Compliance with other applicable requirements of Rule 3 Release of Performance Bonds, have been addressed in the DMG Final Decisions for these two bond release actions. Public notice was provided to all affected landowners and other interested parties, State and Federal governmental agencies, local planning authorities, and water control agencies. Newspaper publication of DMG's Proposed Decisions (Required by Rule 3 in order to solicit public comment on the DMG's Proposed Decisions prior to finalization.), and service of the above public notices did not result in objections to either of the two separate bond release applications or DMG's Proposed Decisions. Minor landowner concerns and USDI, Bureau of Land Management concems were resolved, and those resolutions are documented in the DMG Final Decisions. The State's administrative decision for these bond releases were finalized during October 2003 and May 2004. The bond release inspections were attended by all interested parties. There were no objections as a result of the public notice. Subsequent DMG monthly inspections have not