Laserfiche WebLink
reclamation plan, most notably to revegetate a portion of the BLM property in return for <br />eliminating the revegetation requirement on a portion of the existing site disturbed by <br />mining. 'Che Division granted the TR-2 application on November 18, 2004 subject to <br />certain stipulations or conditions, one of which requires the Petitioner to reclaim areas <br />disturbed by mining pursuant to the original reclamation plan ("Stipulation No. 2"). In <br />other words, Stipulation No. 2 rejects the proposed exchange of lands to be reclaimed and <br />requires the Petitioner to reclaim the property originally disturbed by Petitioner's mining <br />activities. Pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 1.4.11, the Petitioner filed a timely <br />appeal of the Division's decision to require Stipulation No. 2. <br />The Division asserts that Stipulation No. 2 is necessazy to avoid violating Section 34-32.5- <br />116(4)(q)(IV) of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction <br />Materials and Construction Materials Rule 3.1.2. Rule 3.1.2 allows an operator to reclaim <br />an equal number of acres of land previously mined upon Board approval. The Division <br />contends that substituted reclamation lands were intended to be used for pre-law mining <br />disturbances, not for affected lands within a permitted site. The Division further asserts <br />that TR-2, as proposed, would not provide for reclamation of all affected lands as required <br />by Section 34-32.5-112.2; does not provide for pit slopes that are stabilized against erosion <br />and weed infestation as required by Section 34-32.5-116(4)(j); and would not be consistent <br />with the post mining land use (recreation) as required by Section 34-32.5-116(2). <br />4. The Petitioner contends that Stipulation No. 2 is unnecessary because the proposed <br />reclamation plan, revised to take into account the BLM`s revegetation goals and other uses <br />of the site, complies with the intent of Rule 3.1.2. The Petitioner contends that under the <br />revised reclamation proposed in TR-2, more acres will end up being reclaimed (23.1 acres) <br />