Laserfiche WebLink
z , <br /> The Board is the sole governmental authority with the power to issue a reclamation permit <br /> or require different reclamation standards. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-109. The Act preempts the authority <br /> of local government to set performance standards for mined land reclamation activities. See C&AI <br /> Sand & Gravel, Div. of C&II Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Bd. Of Ctj� Cornru'rs, 673 P 2d 1013, <br /> 1017 (Colo. App. 1983). As the only government entity with the power to act, the Board has a duty <br /> to the citizens of Colorado to ensure reclamation plans provide for the safe post-mining use, are <br /> adequately funded and ultimately implemented. If the Board does not exercise its exclusive <br /> authority appropriately, the consequences can be dangerous and expensive. <br /> IL THE ORDER APPROVES CREATION OF A NEW SCAR <br /> Because the high slopes are left in place,Amendment No.4 requires obtaining and delivering <br /> to the site an additional approximate 2,345,000 cubic yards of fill to complete the reclamation. <br /> Adequacy Response No.1 Exhibit L,Page L-2. Amendment No.4 proposes to obtain that additional <br /> needed fill on site by disturbing many more acres of ground, without any proposed plan to reclaim <br /> the newly disturbed acreage. Stated bluntly, CMC proposed to reclaim one scar by creating a new <br /> scar, which it does not propose to reclaim. For the Board to approve creation of more scars to <br /> address an existing scar is bad policy and does not adequately account for the impact on wildlife <br /> and the environment,as required by the Act. The Board's action displaces an already approved plan <br /> that does not create a new scar. <br /> III. THE ORDER APPROVES A LESS SAFE PLAN <br /> The evidence presented and unrefuted was that Amendment No. 4 reduced the factors of <br /> safety, which were established in Amendment No. 3, by an average of 43%. While CMC asserted <br /> Amendment No. 4 was easier to build and safer for the construction worker, it was unable to rebut <br /> the clear evidence that Amendment No. 4 results in a substantially less safe, slide prone site <br /> ultimately. <br /> RULE 3.1.5(3): IF NOT ELIMINATED, ALL HIGHWALLS SHALL BE <br /> STABILIZED <br /> The main focus of Amendment No. 3 was to provide a plan that would satisfy Rule 3.L5(3) <br /> and stabilize this inherently- dangerous site by removing the historically unstable walls rather than <br /> trying to fight nature and bolster them. <br /> This reduction in the Factors of Safety is especially important because, at the same <br /> time, CMC and the CDRMS changed the end land use from "wildlife habitat' to "recreation" <br /> so that the public can hike and ride bikes on the site. One would expect that the intensive use <br /> would actually cause the Division and the Board to INCREASE the stability and reduce the <br /> probability of a slide and even raise the level of safety of the quarry. Lowering the Factors of <br /> Safety, to the acknowledged "bare minimum" presents an unnecessary clanger to the citizens <br /> of Colorado. <br /> 2 <br />