Laserfiche WebLink
2. The Objectors assert that the Applicant has failed to comply with <br />Construction Materials Rule 3.1.5(5). <br />The Applicant is not expected to encounter acid forming or toxic materials <br />in the excavation process. Other aesthetic issues have been addressed <br />through the Montrose County Conditional Use process and aze not within <br />the jurisdiction of the Boazd. <br />4. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has complied <br />with the minimum requirements of Construction Materials Rule 3.1.5(5). <br />K. Adequacy ofthe Proposed Financial Warranty <br />Construction Materials Rules 4.2.1 and 6.4.12 set forth financial warranty <br />requirements, including that they be set at levels reflecting the current cost <br />of fulfilling the requirements of a given reclamation plan and that they <br />provide a breakdown of estimated reclamation costs. <br />2. The Objectors assert that the Applicant has failed to comply with <br />Construction Materials Rules 4.2.1 and 6.4.12. <br />The Division established a financial warranty requirement in the amount <br />of $132,000, and the Applicant agreed to provide that warranty. The <br />Board has directed the Division to recalculate the financial warranty <br />amount given the change in mining plans brought about by the imposition <br />of one full year's worth of groundwater monitoring data prior to the <br />commencement of any mining activities at the site. The Applicant has <br />committed to meeting this amount. <br />14 <br />