(a) If you conduct operations under a notice or a plan of operations and you provide an individual financial guarantee, it must cover the estimated cost as if BLM were to contract with a third party to reclaim your operations according to the reclamation plan, including construction and maintenance costs for any treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal and State environmental standards. The financial guarantee must also cover any interim stabilization and infrastructure maintenance costs needed to maintain the area of operations in compliance with applicable environmental requirements while third-party contracts are developed and executed.
(b) BLM will periodically review the estimated cost of reclamation and the adequacy of any funding mechanism established under paragraph (c) of this section and require increased coverage, if necessary.
(c) When BLM identifies a need for it, you must establish a trust fund or other funding mechanism available to BLM to ensure the continuation of long-term treatment to achieve water quality standards and for other long term, post-mining maintenance requirements. The funding must be adequate to provide for construction, long-term operation, maintenance, or replacement of any treatment facilities and infrastructure, for as long as the treatment and facilities are needed after mine closure. BLM may identify the need for a trust fund or other funding mechanism during plan review or later.
Notes of Decisions
Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 4× “43 C.F.R. § 3809.552 (a) maintains that individual financial assurances (FAs) “must cover the estimated cost as if [the Bureau] were to contract with a third party to reclaim your operations according to the reclamation plan, including con- struction and maintenance costs for…”
Great Basin Resource Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 844 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2016).
“The requirements of 43 C.F.R. § 3809.552 and 3809.554 apply to operators, like Eureka Moly, that plan to use an individual financial guarantee, rather than a "blanket” guarantee covering multiple operations, § 3809.”
Mineral Policy Ctr. v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2003).
“Notably, for instance, Interior adopted all of the NRC’s UUD recommendations, including requiring: (1) financial guarantees to cover commensurate reclamation costs for all mining activities disturbing the public lands or resources, even those affecting areas of less than five…”
Great Basin Resource Watch v. US DOI (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” 18 43 C.F.R. § 3809.552 (a). The reclamation cost of determination is the amount of money that must 19 be covered by the financial guarantee.”
Great Basin Resource Watch v. Blm (9th Cir. 2016).
“7 The requirements of 43 C.F.R. § 3809.552 and 3809.554 apply to operators, like Eureka Moly, that plan to use an individual financial guarantee, rather than a “blanket” guarantee covering multiple operations, § 3809.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.