Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Recommendation to Approve 32 <br /> September 29, 2016 <br /> The Applicant is preparing a Wildfire Management Plan that will be included in the El Paso County <br /> Special Use Permit application. Such issues are under the jurisdiction of El Paso County, and should be <br /> addressed through their permitting process. <br /> 31. Concerns regarding an increased security risk to residents and property due to reduced access <br /> control on site (no locked gates on quarry road; currently access controlled by two security gates - <br /> quarry road would bypass Is'security gate—creating unfavorable security environment for residents) <br /> (C.Reed,N.Reed,J.Moore,K.Moore) <br /> The Act and Rules do not specifically address potential security issues. Such issues are under the <br /> jurisdiction of El Paso County. These issues should be addressed through the permitting process of El <br /> Paso County. <br /> The quarry entrance will have a gate near the intersection with Highway 115, and this gate will be locked <br /> whenever the quarry is closed. During operational hours, access to the quarry will be limited to approved <br /> personnel. All personnel are required to sign in and sign out, as required by the U.S. Mine Safety and <br /> Health Administration (MSHA). <br /> 32. Concerns that the Applicant's bond estimate submitted in Exhibit L is not adequate (did they <br /> even appropriate an adequate escrow amount for reclamation? Why only bond through Mining Phase <br /> III? Cost estimate includes a "one mile, downhill haul distance'; but at least a portion of the distance <br /> from fines and topsoil piles to the quarry pits will need to be uphill to return material to terraces within <br /> mine pits); Concerns that the Division should require Transit Mix to post financial bonds to cover 1) <br /> costs associated with repairing any damage to Little Turkey Creek Road caused by flooding or <br /> landslides, 2) costs associated with repairing damage to nearby wells and providing water to residents <br /> until wells can be repaired; Concerns that the Applicant has not provided any concrete plans, <br /> commitments, or bond proposals to mitigate very likely detrimental events(impact to structures, creeks, <br /> groundwater, surface water, etc.); Concerns that Exhibit L does not include estimates for reclamation <br /> of ALL affected land <br /> (C.Reed,N.Reed,S. Reinsma,M.Heer, C.Heer) <br /> Pursuant to C.R.S. 34-32.5-117(4)(b), the purpose of the financial warranty is to ensure the State has <br /> sufficient funds to complete reclamation of the affected lands in the event of revocation of the permit and <br /> forfeiture of the financial warranty. The statute authorizes the Division to require financial warranty <br /> sufficient to complete reclamation for all lands previously affected and not yet fully reclaimed, and all <br /> lands anticipated to be affected within the next year. The Applicant has agreed to provide financial <br /> warranty sufficient to address the cost of reclamation through the first ten years of the operation (through <br /> mining phase three). <br /> The statute does not authorize the Division to require financial warranty to address hypothetical situations <br /> whereby off-site damage might occur. The application demonstrates that off-site areas shall not be <br /> damaged by the mining and/or reclamation activities. If off-site areas are damaged by the mining and/or <br /> reclamation activities,the Division will pursue enforcement action against the Operator whereby the issue <br /> may be resolved in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Act and Rules. <br /> 1313 Sherina Street. Roam, 215. Dtn:er. CO 8Cii„3 P 3,)3.866.3367 F 303.832.8'46 h1tp://ri:ir4;g.tta'~ c a, is <br /> '> <br /> )oho'-V, Hickerloop', GovP'noi- j RoI`a'r N/, RacJaU, Eyecutive Diroctoi I <br />