Laserfiche WebLink
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Chair <br />March 31, 2011 <br />Page 7 <br />Even if the Board disregarded or discounted the above discussion of <br />"substantially commenced" in subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Part A, the <br />permitting and development of the sand and gravel operation represents <br />achievement of the approved alternative post mining industrial or commercial <br />land use as contemplated by the Reclamation Plan as early as 1995, and should <br />by itself be sufficient to release the bond as to the entire permit area. The <br />Division has taken the position that since it was spun off from the coal permit, <br />the sand and gravel operation is separate and independent from any potential <br />development of the coal permit area, and that substantial commencement of the <br />industrial or commercial land use on part of the original permit area has no <br />effect on the determination of development as to the rest of the permit area. <br />This position ignores the historic basis of the creation of the sand and gravel <br />operations and permit and the requirements of the Reclamation Plan. The <br />Reclamation Plan does not require that OEI divide up areas within the permit <br />area, or implement a specific plan of development with respect to any such <br />area. The transfer of the sand and gravel operation to a separate permit from <br />the coal permit evidences historically that the industrial or commercial land use <br />that was the designated post-mining use in the Reclamation Plan at the time the <br />sand and gravel lands were separated from the coal lands, has been met. <br />Accordingly, the Board should decide that the entire remaining reclamation <br />bond for the Carbon Junction Mine should be released solely because of the <br />commercial sand and gravel operations. <br />B. Reclamation Costs; Summary Sheet. <br />Additionally, and in the alternative, OEI contends that the two page estimate of <br />reclamation costs summary sheet attached to and part of the Decision and <br />referred to in the first full paragraph on page 17 of the Decision, erroneously <br />includes tasks that have been completed and whose completion has been <br />approved by the Division. For example, Task 052 on page two of this summary <br />sheet allocates $938 of costs to removal of twenty-five 55-gallon drums that <br />the Division well knows have already been removed. This is one small <br />example of numerous such completed tasks to which remaining costs are <br />improperly allocated. Accordingly, the bond liability expressly set forth in the <br />#1524340 0 den