Laserfiche WebLink
mechanical controls first; if that fails to effectively control the weeds, it plans to use <br />chemical controls, and cultural or biological controls would be used as a last resort, in <br />accordance with the Weld County Code and the Colorado Noxious Weed <br />Management Act. <br />33. The weight of the evidence suggests that this plan would control weed infestation. <br />34. The Applicant's plan satisfies Rule 3.1.10(6). <br />Financial Warranty <br />3S. The Objectors are concerned that the size of the financial warranty is sufficient to <br />ensure that the proposed operation is adequately reclaimed. <br />36. Construction Materials Rule 4.2.1 requires that the Applicant post a warranty that <br />reflects the actual current cost of fulfilling the requirements of the Reclamation Plan. <br />It must include an amount equal to five (5%) percent of the cost of reclamation to <br />cover the Division's administrative costs. <br />37. The Division evaluated [he sufficiency of the Applicant's proposed warranty using a <br />computer program designed for use in the coal program and approved by the U.S. <br />Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining. This program assigns values to <br />each reclamation task based on the details associated with the particulaz operation, <br />including time, equipment and materials. The program also accounts for the <br />Division's 5% administrative costs. <br />38. Based on this evaluation, the Division is requiring a warranty of $1,052,152.00. <br />39. The weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that this warranty amount is <br />sufficient to cover reclamation costs for the proposed operation. <br />7 <br />