2018-12-12_REVISION - M2018016 (7)

Home Browse Search

' processes resent more difficult challenges and may take ears or decades. The last p P g Y Y ' myth is to reuse unsuccessful approaches because they may have worked sometime and somewhere in the past. ' The positive side of much rehabilitation is that restoration rarely leaves mining sites worse off than they would have been without rehabilitation, even when the rehabilitation does not fully meet its stated goals. Faint praise! Nonetheless, ' ignoring uncertainty can result in surprise and failure. One size does not fit all even when situations appear very similar. Nonetheless, government regulations often provide incentives for one size to fit all. These uncertainties suggest that the ' justification for a mining project must be evaluated in terms of total societal costs and that the risks and vulnerabilities inherent in any rehabilitation should be carefully accounted for. Lessons Learned about Risk and Vulnerability ' This economic assessment specifically focuses on externalities -- costs that are not directly borne by a business or project. Externalities can be assessed in terms of ' risk and vulnerability. Risk relates to uncertainty about desired outcomes. For example, Colorado standards may not fully control externalities due to insufficient regulatory controls and/or weak compliance on the part of mine operators. ' Vulnerability, relates to the way in which a population or environment is able to cope with and/or recover from the impact of an unanticipated risk. ' Based on our research,we have reached the following conclusions for each area of concern: ' Real Estate Vulnerability: Because current property owners in Empire could not anticipate negative shocks to their property values from a sand and gravel pit, they are vulnerable to its implementation. Median assessed property values in Empire, which are lower than Clear Creek averages,would fall by an estimated 12.7 percent from $213,199 to $178,910 should the DMRM be permitted. Total losses to Empire property owners in total would be in the range of$4.4 million to $7.2 million. Health Risks and Vulnerability: Adverse health impacts from the DMRM would ' impact the most vulnerable populations in Clear Creek County- children and the elderly. Children with more episodes of respiratory illness would miss more school days and would likely have poorer test scores. While we cannot say how effective ' DMRM's plan to reduce of dust and particulates would be, or which communities would suffer negative impacts,we can say that with certainty that any increase in illness or death among children and the elderly is not worth the risk. Furthermore, ' the possibility of ensuing lawsuits could be expensive for Clear Creek County and the DMRM. 30