Laserfiche WebLink
The bond shall be in an amount sufficient to assure the <br /> completion of reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by <br /> the Mined Land Reclamation Board ( "Board" ) in the event of <br /> forfeiture by the operator. § 34-33-113 ( 1 ) . <br /> The bond is to be backed by a surety, except that the <br /> Division shall accept the bond without a separate surety when the <br /> applicant demonstrates to the Division's satisfaction that the <br /> applicant has the financial means to self-bond for reclamation. <br /> § 34-33-113 ( 3 ) . In Resources ' case, proof of financial <br /> responsibility was provided by a deed of trust on a rock dust <br /> plant owned by Resources . The anticipated liquidation value of <br /> the rock dust plant is less than the amount of anticipated <br /> reclamation expenses . <br /> The amount of the bond may be adjusted by the Division <br /> from time to time as the cost of future reclamation changes . § <br /> 34-33-113 (5 ) . <br /> The Division may approve revisions to a previously <br /> approved reclamation plan if it finds that the reclamation <br /> required by the Act can be accomplished under the revisions. <br /> § 34-33-115 ( 1 ) . The standards for reclamation are set forth in <br /> § 34-33-120, and with respect to the surface effects of <br /> underground mining, § 34-33-121. <br /> The Division may seek revocation of a permit when the <br /> Division determines that there is a pattern of violations of <br /> permit conditions. § 34-33-123 (7 ) . In 1991, the Division <br /> alleged a pattern of violations and sought revocation of <br /> Resources ' permit. Rather than risk loss of the permit at a time <br /> when it was attempting to sell the mine, Resources entered into a <br /> consent order in which the Division agreed to postpone revocation <br /> until January 23 , 1992, and Resources agreed that it would not <br /> oppose revocation if no purchaser for the mine had been found by <br /> that time. The agreement was a pragmatic one. If no purchaser <br /> could be found by January 1992, there was little likelihood that <br /> the mine would be reopened and the existence of a mining permit <br /> probably would be moot. If a purchaser was found, any transfer <br /> of the permit would need to be approved by the Division, and <br /> issues related to regulatory compliance then could be negotiated <br /> between the Division and the new operator. § 34-33-115 (2 ) . <br /> Since a purchaser has not been found, the Division <br /> apparently is free to proceed with revocation of the permit. <br /> However, on January 23 the Board, at the urging of the company <br /> and the Division, decided to take no action until the Board's <br /> February meeting. If the permit is revoked at that time, <br /> Resources is required to complete reclamation within a period <br /> specified by the Board, or the Board may declare the performance <br /> bond forfeited. Proceeds of a forfeited bond shall be available <br /> -2- <br />