Laserfiche WebLink
returned, we believe it would be prudent and appropriate to follow <br /> the concept of the bond release schedule set forth in Rule 3.03 . 1 . <br /> Although the provisions of Rule 3 .03 are not directly applicable to <br /> bond forfeiture, there is no reason that unused bond funds should <br /> be returned to a permittee more expeditiously in the event of bond <br /> forfeiture than would be the case if the bond had not been <br /> forfeited. Otherwise, an incentive might be provided,for operators <br /> who have ceased mining to allow the State to forfeit their bond and <br /> assume liability for remaining reclamation, maintenance or repairs. <br /> Consequently, we would propose to evaluate the status of the <br /> revegetated stands in the first few growing seasons following the <br /> AML revegetation project. Upon determining that establishment of <br /> vegetation supporting the _ _postmining land use has been <br /> accomplished, an additional portion of the remaining bond amount <br /> (up to $13 ,650.00) might be returned. Upon completion of the 10 <br /> year liability period, if reclamation is deemed successful , any <br /> remaining bond funds would be returned. <br /> Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. <br /> Sin ely, <br /> � v <br /> Dan T. Mathews <br /> Environmental Protection Specialist <br /> cc: Paul Krabacher, DMG <br /> Larry Routten, DMG <br /> Drew Wilson, American Shield Coal Co. <br /> Earl Madden <br />