Laserfiche WebLink
Hohne Roberts & Owen LLP® <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Mr. David Berry <br />November 12, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br />development which refers to the use to which the land is to put. If actual <br />construction had been intended, that word could have been inserted in the <br />regulation. It was not. <br />Moreover, the Regulations implicitly provide that commencement of <br />construction activities is beyond the scope of a permittee's bond liability. <br />Section 3.02.1(7) provides that a permittee's liability includes actions required <br />by the reclamation plan, and completion of the plan "in such a manner that the <br />land will be capable of saporting a post mining land use approved under <br />4.16.3. 4 The Regulations continue, "[i]mplementation of an alternative post - <br />mining land use approved under 4.16.3, which is beyond the control of the <br />permittee, need not be covered by the bond." <br />Oakridge's reclamation plan, authorizing an alternative land use <br />pursuant to 4.16.3 and approved by the Division (the " Reclamation Plan "), <br />makes no requirement that Oakridge build five foundations or otherwise engage <br />in construction activities of any kind. Without specific requirements in the <br />Reclamation Plan, the Regulations only require that a permittee develop land in <br />such a manner that it is capable of supporting the approved post mining land <br />use, which Oakridge has clearly demonstrated. <br />Additionally, the Division and Oakridge agree that revegetation has <br />been successfully completed, pursuant to the requirements of 4.15.10(2), and <br />the Division does not contend that the reclaimed permit nand is not capable of <br />supporting the approved post mining land use, as required by the Regulations. <br />In effect, the Division's requirement that five foundations be built on the permit <br />lands would force Oakridge to assume the roles of real estate developer and <br />general contractor. The Reclamation Act surely did not intend this result, and <br />the Regulations do not support the Division's interpretation. <br />(iii) Option to Purchase As further evidence of development of the post <br />mining land use, on April 4, 2006, Oakridge entered into a Contract to Buy and <br />Sell Real Estate with a real estate developer that provided for an option to <br />4 See pages 5 -6 below regarding the Federal language. <br />#1502381 0 den <br />