Laserfiche WebLink
As SMCRA and the Colorado program require, DMG pursued reclamation bond funds <br />after permit revocation. The funds awarded DMG after the bankruptcies were then used <br />for reclamation of the property. SMCRA, and therefore OSM, does not address <br />administration of bond forfeiturz funds in the per.od between actual receipt of [~ ose fiords <br />and reclamation of the property. Colorado has sole discretion on bond forfeiture funds <br />administration, including any interest gained. OSM has no authority in this matter. OSM <br />will provide DMG v.~ith copies of your correspondence, so your concern will be known. <br />2. Personnel. OSM has no authority over DMG's assignation of personnel to a particular <br />project. While we have no authority, the issue was discussed with DMG. DMG <br />responded that it was aware of your relationship with the project leader and tried to <br />accommodate your wishes. The money made available by the Colorado legislature for <br />this project came from state severance tax, not SMCRA required reclamation bond funds. <br />The legislature established time limits on DMG for the use of this money. This, coupled <br />with the desire to accomplish the project during the presencfavorable construction season <br />and manpower limitations resulted in the Abandoned Mine Lands section assigning Mr. <br />Nelson to your project. <br />3. Landowner input. SMCRA and the Colorado program provide for consultation with <br />landowners for a particular mine's reclamation plan. This consultation is necessary to <br />protect your rights from mining operations and to ensure restoration of the land to a post- <br />mining land use that existed prior to mining, or to ensure that any post-mining land use <br />changes aze consistent with your plans as [he surface owner. OSM has found from <br />conversations with you and DMG that the consultation process has occurred. Apparently <br />the problem is not with consultation, but with coming to an agreement on the manner in <br />which a successful post-mining land use is achieved. <br />DMG invested many hours, both on-the-ground and in drafting design specifications, for <br />the road reconstruction. DMG acknowledges it is a lazge and comprehensive design; as <br />you were told, a "Cadillac" design. This was partly done in recognition of the fact that <br />the 1994 diversion structures failed within a yeaz because of the amount and velocity of <br />runoff from the disturbed azea. A State of Colorado registered professional engineer <br />developed the road design. Smaller culverts and the S-curve alignment that could be <br />used, and would result in the lower cost that you reference, were initially considered and <br />discarded. The smaller culverts would not be capable of safely passing runoff from the <br />disturbed azea. The S-curve on grade could be negotiated by a Jeep-type vehicle, but not <br />a pickup truck with a hay or stock trailer. These vehicle and trailer combinations would <br />be used on the road for either the post-mining land use of the GEC Mine, or by other road <br />users such as the Southfield Mine with access to its vent fan or the landowner with access <br />to their ranching property at the road's end. <br />OSM's standing in this issue of the complaint is with regard to landowner consultation. <br />OSM believes you have been properly consulted during this process. Beyond that, DMG <br />is commended for identifying ways in which obtaining funding to perform the additional <br />safety and stability enhancements to your property for which bond forfeiture funds were <br />insufficient. <br />