_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (13) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This information could often be only within the knowledge of the applicant. There is no economic burden on an applicant to supply such a list. The legislative policy is clear that all operations within the State must be permitted. This regulation only requires information necessary to this ® legislative requirement. 2. 12 Maps and Exhibits (5) Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan (b) BASIS E PURPOSE This regulation was initially adopted by this Board's predecessor. Both Boards have heard testimony on this concern. The problem arises because in most cases, the applicant who proposes an industrial , residential and commercial end land use is a small miner without the economic resources to implement such developments. In the experiences of the Board's predecessor, the applicant merely asserts to the Board that the area could be best de- veloped for one of those three uses. There may be the potential for a large company to so develop the land, but that party does not appear before the Board and has no legal obligation to the State to so develop the land. Therefore , the Board was faced with the alternatives of only allowing large companies who can guarantee to the Board that an industrial , residential and community development on the land, to have these end land uses of requiring the applicant to bond the development of the site as an industrial , resi - dential or commercial site, and to attempt to develop a compromise situation which would allow small applicants to attain approval of such end land uses • without having to post unnecessarily large bonds. The Board chose the latter solution. Furthermore, to grant a permit , the Board must find reclamation plan can meet the requirements of CRS 1973 , 34-32-116, as amended. These provisions ( 116) require that land be stabilized, i .e. , protection from erosion and not polluting the air and waters of the State. Typically, the reclamation plan for such application merely requires the land to be graded and levelled. This makes sense because any other revegetation efforts are needless if the proposed development is built within a relatively short period of time. However, economic conditions may change and such proposed developments can become uneconomical . Thus , to fulfill its obligation under the statute, the Board must have protection if the proposed industrial , resi - dential or commercial developments do not materialize. If these three pro- posed post-mining uses do not materialize, the scabilization of soils and air and water pollution become serious concerns. To avoid overbonding the applicant and at the same time to issue a valid permit under the Act , the Board adopted this regulation. To clarify the meaning of this regulation , the Board reworded the last sentence. The rewording indicates that the revegetation requirement is not an alternative reclamation plan , but an integral part of the reclamation plan which would be implemented if the pro- posed post mining beneficial use did not materialize. The revegetation effect will fulfill the operator's statutory obligation to stabilize the land use and minimize the disturbance and the hydrologic balance. This sytem enables the Board to approve these three proposed end land uses , and require reason- able bond, and to release the operator's bond within a reasonable time. - 49 -