Laserfiche WebLink
~I~ I~~I~~I~~II~~I~~ <br />sss <br />Before the Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />State of Colorado <br />FILE NO. C-80-002 <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND BOARD ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF O.C. MINE NO. 2 <br />This matter comes before the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board "Board," upon the proposed <br />decision by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology "Division," to increase the reclamation <br />bond amount for the O.C. Mine No. 2. Mr. Robert Weaver, "the operator," of the O.C. Mine No. 2, <br />has responded with a request for a Board Hearing as allowed by Rule 2.07.4(3)(d). <br />FINDINGS OF FACT <br />The Division holds a cash reclamation bond of $36,000 for the O.C. Mine No. 2. <br />2. In the spring of 1992, during the renewal of the O.C. Mine No. 2 permit, the Division estimated <br />the reclamation liability for the mine to be $60,734. <br />3. During the June 24, 1992, inspection, the operator was given an informal draft copy of the <br />Division's reclamation liability calculations. The Division estimated that it would cost the <br />$60,734 to reclaim the mine. <br />4. On September 25, 1992, an informal follow-up letter with a cost estimate was sent to the <br />operator reiterating the estimate of $60,734. The operator was given the options of either <br />increasing the bond, reducing the liability by removing surface structures, or disputing the <br />Division's estimates and providing challenging calculations. <br />5. On February 18, 1993, afollow-up letter was sent to the operator reiterating the September 25 <br />letter; a deadline of May 1, 1993, was set to reduce the reclamation liability or to submit <br />additional bond. If this deadline was not met, the Division would proceed with a formal bond <br />increase decision; pursuant to the orocedures of Rule 3.02.2(4). <br />6. On June 7, 1993, the Division notified the operator that it was proceeding with the proposed <br />bond increase. Pursuant to Rule 3.02.2(4)(a), the operator was offered the opportunity for an <br />informal conference. <br />7. During May 1993, the operator removed waste oil and fuel products from the mine, and <br />obtained a letter from the local utility company acknowledging their responsibility for the power <br />poles. This was confirmed by a site inspection on June 10, 1993. <br />8. On June 29, 1993, an informal conference was held in Gunnison. During this meeting, <br />attended by the operator, the land owner, and the bank, the reclamation liability was <br />discussed. The Division agreed to recalculate the reclamation liability to include the work that <br />had been conducted at the mine during May. <br />9. On July 12, 1993, the Division recalculated the reclamation liability estimate to be $46,482. <br />