My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV105687
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV105687
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:17:34 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 1:28:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980002
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Name
DRAFT
Type & Sequence
SI1
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 />~ • III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <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 <br />the request by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") to increase <br />the reclamation bond amount of the O.C. Mine No. 2. Mr. Robert Weaver, operator <br />of the O.C. Mine No. 2 has responded with a request for a Board Hearing. <br />FINDINGS OF FACT' <br />1. The Division holds a cash reclamtion bond for $36,000 for the O.C. Mine No. <br />2. <br />2. During the renewal of the O.C. Mine No. 2 pemut in the spring of 1992, the <br />Division calculated the reclamation liability for the mine to be $60,734. <br />3. On July 24, 1992, during the June inspection, Mr. Weaver was given a draft <br />copy of the Division's reclamation liability calculations. The Division estimated <br />that it would cost $60,734 to reclaim the mine. <br />4. On September 25, 1992 afollow-up letter with cost estimate was sent to Mr. <br />Weaver confirming the estimate of $60,734. The operator was given the <br />options of either increasing the bond, reducing the liability by removing <br />surface structures, or disputing the Division's estimates and providing <br />challenging calculations. <br />5. On February 18, 1993 afollow-up letter was sent reiterating and defining the <br />September 25th letter; a deadline of May 1, 1993 was given. <br />6. The Division notified Mr. Weaver on June 7, 1993 that it was proceeding with <br />the proposed bond increase. Pursuant to Rule 3.02.2(4)(a), Mr. Weaver was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.