Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3 <br />A. No state regulatory agency in the U.S. has required a coal <br />mine to post reclamation bond for disturbance associated with <br />subsidence control or mitigation work, <br />B. OSM has never required a coal mine to post reclamation bond <br />for disturbance associated with subsidence control or <br />mitigation work, <br />C. OSM does not have an official policy in regard to this <br />matter, and OSM has never indicated to a State RA that <br />reclamation bond should be posted for disturbance associated <br />with subsidence control or mitigation work, and <br />D. there has not yet been a court ruling which addressed the need <br />to post reclamation bond for subsidence control work <br />(Although, the courts have found there is a legal distinction <br />between subsidence damage to privately owned structures and <br />injury to the land itself. The courts have also clearly <br />stated that, regardless of how structural damage is mitigated, <br />"the operator is nevertheless responsible for restoring the <br />land" to a condition where reasonably foreseeable use is <br />feasible. <br />Based on the above, I do not believe it would be appropriate or <br />prudent for DMG to instruct CEC to post reclamation bond for the <br />pipeline disturbance. Since the proposed diversions and sumps are <br />not required for the subsidence control work, and since they are <br />not the responsibility of Amoco, I believe we need to instruct CEC <br />to post reclamation bond for these structures. As such, they will <br />fall into the ten year liability period associated with other mine <br />disturbance. <br />C:\wp51\72094b <br />