1992-04-06_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

e ... TAIL ■ PRIDE IN United States Department of the Interior AMERICA OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT IN i SUITE 310 625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 In Reply Refei To: January 24, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NO. P 965 799 222 Mr. Steven G. Renner, Coal Program Supervisor Tined Land Reclamation Division Department of Natural Resources 215 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 d J Re: Ten -Day Letter (TDL) No. 91 -02 -244 -5 Dear Mr. Renner: The following is a written finding, in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11, regarding the Mined Land Reclamation Division's (MLRD) response to the above - referenced TDL. On November 20, 1991, the Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) transmitted a citizen's complaint to MLRD via the TDL process. MLRD received the TDL on November 22, 1991, and AFO received MLRD's response on December 3, 1991. The citizen complaint alleged that the current bond being held by MLRD for the Mid- Continent permit is inadequate due to depreciation of the collateral bond (real estate) and unpaid back taxes. MLRD's response of December 3, 1991, does not directly address the specific allegations made by the complainant concerning the current fair market value of the assets posted as bond. MLRD's position is that the Settlement Agreement entered into by MLRD and the permittee on May 22, 1991, precludes action on the sufficiency of the bond until such time when activities described in the agreement are set in motion. The Settlement Agreement outlines conditions which could lead to forfeiture of the bond and sets forth procedures to be followed in the event of a permit transfer. However, the Settlement Agreement does not address the adequacy of the current bond being held by MRLD unless Mid - Continent decides to resume active mining operations. A new appraisal would be required prior to resumption of operations. The agreement provides no assurances that the bond would be adequate in the event of forfeiture. The complainant has made allegations that, if true, would constitute a violation of the State program. Section 3.02.4(2)(c)(ix)(c) requires that the bond value of any real property shall be adjusted for any legal costs or value uncertainties that may affect the net cash available to complete reclamation work. Depreciation of the real property and the outstanding tax lien would appear to constitute value uncertainties for which adjustments to the bond value are required.