Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 3.1.1 addresses establishing the post-mining land use. Rule 3.1.1(1) and (2) states that in <br />consultation with the landowner, where possible, and subject to the approval of the Board or Office, the <br />operator shall choose how the affected lands shall be reclaimed. The landowner in this case is the <br />operator and they have indicated they will reclaim the affected lands as rangeland. Pursuant to Rule <br />6.4.5, the reclamation plan must support the post-mining land use as selected by the applicant, in <br />consultation with the landowner. <br />DMG has reviewed the permit application and determined that the selected post-mining land use is <br />appropriate and that the reclamation plan appropriately supports that land use. DMG will utilize the data <br />provided in the reclamation plan and reclamation cost exhibits to calculate the estimated cost of <br />reclamation of the affected area. <br />24. Comment that reclamation bonding should include fnancial coverage should the <br />operation pollute groundwater in the area sufficient to cover cleanup or replacement of <br />numerous private wells in the surrounding area. <br />Rule 4.2.1(1) states that all financial warranties shall be set at a level which reflects the actual current <br />cost of fulfilling the requirements of the reclamation plan. DMG has not identified any means through <br />which this proposed mining operation could pollute groundwater or wells in the area surrounding the <br />site. Therefore, clean-up or replacement of wells is not a requirement in the reclamation plan and costs <br />for that task are not included in the reclamation cost estimate. The Construction Materials Act does not <br />allow the Board to bond for "what if' scenarios, only what is determined to complete reclamation in the <br />event the State must assume reclamation responsibility, based on the approved reclamation plan. <br />25. Comment that the reclamation bonding should cover the financial damages which could <br />occur should the Rollins cliffs fail and damage private roads or structures below or kill <br />someone. <br />The applicant submitted a geotechnical evaluation report prepared by Revey Associates, Inc. addressing <br />the affect of the mining operation on the stability of the Rollins sandstone cliffs just south of the site. <br />DMG staff conducted a review of the Revey report and follow-up supporting information, submitted in <br />response to citizen comments received about that report. <br />Rule 4.2.1(1) states that all financial warranties shall be set at a level which reflects the actual current <br />cost of fulfilling the requirements of the reclamation plan. DMG has determined that the potential for <br />this proposed mining operation to exacerbate the natural spalling of rock from these cliffs is essentially <br />non-existent. Therefore, costs for financial damages are not included in the reclamation cost estimate. <br />B. ISSUES RAISED DURING THE COMBINED COMMENT PERIOD THAT THE <br />DIVISION BELIEVES ARE NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION <br />OR BOARD <br />1. Please have the pre-hearing conference include a tour of the site to which all parties are <br />invitetG <br />The proposed mine site is private property. DMG does not have the authority to require the applicant to <br />allow public access to their property. <br />