[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6156896,"mediaKeyId","5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d","parentId",5467999,"title","DRMS to tighten guidance on imported inert fill; says protruding metals/plastics are not 'inert'","audioSeconds",3844,"startMs",1006000,"endMs",4850000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d&start=1006&end=4850","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d/thumbnail_1006000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6156896/Colorado/DRMS-to-tighten-guidance-on-imported-inert-fill-says-protruding-metalsplastics-are-not-inert","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6156896-bb1dd4104492a3e7c3c3f5d17d56f7ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770616655&Signature=a7k8X0q4QpQJL7lxh3FS~0BbspMtW9esXr67Vb8l9GhllfTU73hnxOZKlTw1Cj-8syfl0V2FUPDJE43O-GQcupSsMwYopzVw6kMuqMx0CVkw166xYCpyZ2oCXMouln-NGo6zqZhrNhj9jn0FeT7ZB6xXYahfTlo2AfRPKQdnqiI2CW94XQH2~7JVcpmmvUVXot3S5CwBUVutDXf3r5GPaSVzhMRE-p~ZDgO9kS-BmgKVrRC083th5gYKftw3qxC1Vz7rCW0ansKLvgkGxvfkppZcey~Gg-PQ~Q0wd~Ys5XPg018-Um6ci4L7u4sDUc3Ym4LK7oswStO06uCrCsBb3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-25T00:05:02.43Z","article","Division staff proposed clarifications on importing inert fill and backfill that would exclude material containing protruding metals or plastics from being classified as inert. Russ Baines, minerals program director, said the division has had enforcement cases tied to mixed material and that \"if it contained rebar, but it wasn't protruding ... then there would not be an issue.\"

A company representative, Miguel Hamarath of iMaths Molybdenum, asked whether the draft language might be read to exclude rebar that is fully encapsulated in concrete; staff responded that encapsulated rebar (for example rebar fully within concrete or epoxy coated) has historically been allowed and they would further wordsmith the provision to make that distinction clear.

DRMS also said it will keep imported inert-fill rules close to current practice: operators must document proposed material placement and, where allowed, provide a post-placement report certifying what was placed and how it was handled. The draft explicitly excludes reclamation-only permits from importing material unless otherwise approved by the office, emphasizing the short-term, limited scope of the three-year reclamation-only permit.

Why this matters: clarifying what counts as inert backfill reduces enforcement uncertainty and helps operators know when filings or approvals are required. The clarification on encapsulated rebar responds to industry questions and staff said they will adjust wording to avoid penalizing commonly accepted practices.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Informal Stakeholders Meetings","oneSentenceSummary","DRMS staff proposed explicitly excluding materials with protruding rebar or plastics from being treated as inert backfill and said encapsulated rebar is acceptable; they also signaled reporting and approval requirements for imported fill and excluded reclamation-only permits from bringing in fill unless approved.","taxTitle","Mined Land Reclamation Board, Governor's Boards and Commissions, Organizations, Executive, Colorado","taxId",28139,"location","Colorado","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6156900,"DRMS draft updates seek clearer topsoil protection, native revegetation and flex on high walls",386,4952000,5338000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d&start=4952&end=5338","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d/thumbnail_4952000.jpg","/articles/6156900/Colorado/DRMS-draft-updates-seek-clearer-topsoil-protection-native-revegetation-and-flex-on-high-walls","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6156900-7d455318814c0372ee263d355c2f61d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770616655&Signature=RTAIUXr3Tev7aJA5utXOKvcXmZ3cK~jSwkDebOZzc4oVoCkX7~zfeskidlS7VPJ6k-QPbFsyG0mKVd0hsOMmkB3s75uI23VoYC8K86Yn1JOEz9OFg6LxUPyOThwsxxXhSxsh~BCu92ChP56knj-ZrS1mY~UJyIbUzcXlyUfAcBXn9POV8Uq6z31HIqCgIhg8uBhvy8-8Siza9dIklpTseU6Z8-AlukyYuNKXYCPia0L~9sesvXRS-OEKe3lZ7QJ-xxXDj1jaS7-7LBn7L6SS4Iiy-jta6SIs9fVFjKWjpUUm80gaAP~0g7HLepB3t8zf1WOapdk-ZyfzpS9swkXRzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the stakeholder meeting, DRMS staff described proposed changes to reclamation standards that would require clearer topsoil protection, encourage native plantings that support pollinators, and provide practical guidance for managing remaining high walls. \"There was a big push... for native plant species that encourage pollinators,\" Russ Baines, minerals program director, said. DRMS staff said native species should receive first consideration but that introduced species could be allowed if approved by the board for sites where natives are not feasible.

On topsoil, staff proposed requiring that topsoil be stripped and segregated from other spoil and protected if it will not be reused within the same growing season; the draft would expect operators to seed or otherwise stabilize stockpiles within a defined time period. Stakeholders noted wording that was unclear: operators asked the rules to explain that \"other spoil\" refers to overburden or non-topsoil material so topsoil is preserved separately. DRMS staff agreed to wordsmith the provision for clarity.

Stakeholders also pressed DRMS to soften absolute language on eliminating high walls where final reclamation cannot reasonably achieve natural topography. Company representatives said large open pits and benched high walls present different technical constraints than quarries; several requested an option such as safeguarding (for example, fencing) if full blending into local topography is not feasible. DRMS staff said they would revise language to allow practicable measures, for example \"or, at a minimum, soften or blend into surrounding topography where feasible,\" or require protective measures where elimination is not practicable.

DRMS staff additionally proposed adding a 180-day expectation for seeding of stockpiled topsoil if it will not be reused immediately and codifying mapping and annual-report requirements to show extent of disturbances and reclaimed acreage.

Why this matters: the changes would codify expectations to preserve soil resources and to prioritize pollinator-supporting vegetation, while DRMS intends to preserve flexibility for large operations with technical constraints.","DRMS staff proposed clarifications on topsoil handling, encouraged native pollinator-friendly plantings while allowing nonnative options in some sites, and discussed wording to make high-wall reclamation obligations feasible for large pits.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6156905,"DRMS proposes clearer amendment process, removes 'technical revision' category and readies e-permitting",451,3065000,3516000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d&start=3065&end=3516","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d/thumbnail_3065000.jpg","/articles/6156905/Colorado/DRMS-proposes-clearer-amendment-process-removes-technical-revision-category-and-readies-e-permitting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6156905-2bc3204452bbe9d86db298c4bb20b219/orig.mp4?Expires=1770616655&Signature=OklfUcESoV9TqXNwkRwdCH9tc3SanKiNsGKjtl-KCs3jmyVn4sQ8rbPIJnp1n0ZFCNOeAmYVYMIWWAr0595AtbqfOhmP3R1O~X7HFr1EmdRy-9VcsPqKcV9d5Gb~SgK9iHP22jrZJsK-JySgASZDysduJyf6pafsbMzOM~0ATf2IYItrGoB2PuHrGdnIUY3IJBFElF36Sr7JXhzjzD7f4Dl8p0Kqz2hHfbCKob4VupkEO6VOvLZmIv9yqVVJIErvfnAulLGl~QWJUt6gAZrl~eoYQ-YepQwBCpvu7POA0iA5kjcj0xt7eZrZIAScWwT-XWFt~fLj3u95AXUzub8ExA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","DRMS staff told stakeholders they plan to eliminate the separate ‘‘technical revision’’ filing category and to use adequacy reviews and formal amendments to handle most changes to pending permit applications. \"A technical revision is not required,\" Russ Baines, minerals program director, said while explaining that review processes already cover the issues that previously triggered technical revisions.

Staff said technical revisions carry fees and are seldom necessary because the division's adequacy and amendment procedures capture the same changes. The draft rules more clearly distinguish between an amendment to an application under review and an amendment to an approved permit. DRMS staff said substantive changes—such as switching milling processes or changing a planned post-mine land use—should be handled as amendments and may trigger public notice and additional review.

The division also described modernization steps for submitting materials: DRMS will accept electronic signatures and e-submitted applications in place of traditional notarized forms once its e-permitting system rolls out. Staff said they will accept electronic proof of service and that the e-permitting system should reduce the need for hard-copy notarization.

Public notice language is also being revised. Instead of prescriptive spacing, notices will be required at a \"sufficient number\" of publicly accessible locations; DRMS staff said they also are considering adding the applicant's email address to public notices and including QR codes on permit signs to link to application or permit pages.

Stakeholders raised process clarifications: applicants must provide proof of submission to county clerks when filing amendments to applications under review, and DRMS staff agreed to confirm the precise timing required by statute. DRMS staff said they will post proposed redlines and accept written input through the division web form.

Why this matters: the changes are intended to reduce administrative fees, speed application processing, improve transparency through e-permitting and QR-code links, and clarify when public notice and additional review are required.","DRMS staff said they will remove the separate 'technical revision' category for permit applications, rely on adequacy reviews and amendments, and expand e-permitting and public notice options including email and QR-code links.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6156910,"DRMS stakeholders review new three-year reclamation-only permit under Senate Bill 54",2289,1364000,3653000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d&start=1364&end=3653","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5467999-3cdc0af9a4d23cea60f69892b094cd6d/thumbnail_1364000.jpg","/articles/6156910/Colorado/DRMS-stakeholders-review-new-three-year-reclamation-only-permit-under-Senate-Bill-54","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6156910-b1cac821d9d053c5b9173a8d08c2262a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770616655&Signature=X8CH1-R4R~KCsEDHPUgb0fXy7uHRAseZo8U168gEv6AZabGOvLhGDNRyn8vLml2S9P0yaKjVFcY~ef6jMmdsTRZHyIUAF4wRHKFh8IOp-mi~vBgWGfKzJWW6xqhbZlUQoallpbcBJ5LpGom9N4IqNsPaJuY~yoT7cQkj0t0vTz8KHunr8Lob9Mm7qoP5aR-d8KT1Hcdm-uR5EAX2VLMQSvUft4CI8007YI5tNi-ug9hzVhJe67m9TkXnGAFRleCvwCMqY~AExItT84peKpwuDZbPJp8rU0QGpDbkqNU8g1rS-65lRZUcn3yYSck2DpwGJHOZnanWDhQyHc-3axA4bQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a stakeholder meeting, the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety outlined a new reclamation-only permit created by recent legislation that would allow reclamation of sites five acres or smaller for up to three years. Russ Baines, minerals program director, said, \"The most important thing here is it's 5 acres or less and it's valid for three years.\"

The proposal implements a statutory provision in Senate Bill 54 to let operators complete limited excavation and reclamation under an abbreviated permit process. DRMS staff said the permit is intended for short-term, \"scoop-and-go\" projects rather than long-term mining operations. The draft rule text also says the reclamation-only permit cannot be issued for sites subject to EPA response actions or CERCLA cleanup, nor for sites that have adits, vent holes or other historic features that express groundwater.

Stakeholders urged clearer drafting on exclusions. Miguel Hamarath of iMaths Molybdenum asked whether language implying exclusion of draining adits might be misread; DRMS staff agreed to clarify that sites with groundwater-expressing features are not eligible for the reclamation-only permit. Staff also confirmed that the new permit cannot be used to convert an existing full mining permit into a reclamation-only permit, and that reclamation-only permits are not eligible for permit transfers or succession-of-operator processes.

DRMS staff said the rules will spell out submission requirements for reclamation-only permit applications and the circumstances where the permit does not apply. The draft limits the permit to sites five acres or less and a three-year maximum for the excavation-and-reclamation activities.

The division plans to publish revised redlines on its website before the next meeting and invited written comments through its web form or general email.

Why this matters: the reclamation-only permit aims to speed cleanup of small or legacy refuse piles while preserving DRMS oversight and excluding sites where federal cleanup or expressed groundwater concerns require coordination with EPA or other agencies.","Division staff explained a new reclamation-only permit tied to Senate Bill 54 that would allow reclamation work on small sites (five acres or less) for up to three years, but exclude sites under federal cleanup or those expressing groundwater.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

DRMS to tighten guidance on imported inert fill; says protruding metals/plastics are not 'inert'

DRMS draft updates seek clearer topsoil protection, native revegetation and flex on high walls

DRMS proposes clearer amendment process, removes 'technical revision' category and readies e-permitting

DRMS stakeholders review new three-year reclamation-only permit under Senate Bill 54