My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-09-23_REVISION - M1977211
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977211
>
2020-09-23_REVISION - M1977211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2024 4:45:57 AM
Creation date
9/24/2020 8:32:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977211
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/23/2020
Doc Name
Warren Dean's Petition for Reconsideration of the MLRB's Findings...
From
Continental Materials Corp.
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Rule 6.5(3)clearly empowers the Board to set factors of safety on a case-by-case basis.and indicates <br /> those factors of safety should be established based on the potential consequences of a failure. Since <br /> CMC shifted the ultimate use of the site to human recreation. asserting that the site is to become a <br /> world class bike park, ensuring the safety of the site became imperative. As a result, the Board <br /> should have increased the factors of safety, or at the minimum.. required CMC to adhere to its <br /> previously promised and currently approved safer reclamation plan under Amendment No.3. <br /> Additionally. Amendment No. 4 was submitted by CMC only in response to the Board's <br /> order that it had to post the additional bond to cover the actual estimated costs to complete the <br /> Amendment No. 3 reclamation plan, which was approximately an additional $7,000,000. CMC's <br /> motivation in submitting Amendment No. 4 was not to provide a safer plan, but merely to reduce <br /> the required bond. CMC's motivations are clear and should have been considered when evaluating <br /> the evidence CMC presented. <br /> One of the legislative purposes of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of <br /> Construction Materials(the"Act") is to"protect and promote the health. safety.. and general welfare <br /> of the people of this state." Under the Act. the Board has the sole responsibility to ensure that the <br /> reclamation plan for the affected land destined for recreational use properly accounts for safety, and <br /> other site-specific conditions relevant and unique to the affected land and its post-mining use. The <br /> Board has a solemn duty to exercise that power to prevent the potentially dangerous consequences <br /> of a failure. <br /> Invalid Assumption Regarding Nature of Existing Fill Material <br /> In addition to concerns about lowering the Factors of Safety standard to the bare minimum, <br /> additional information makes clear that one of the major assumptions upon which Amendment No. <br /> 4 was approved was faulty. To meet the structural requirements for the buttress wall, which was a <br /> requirement to meet the minimum factors of safety, CMC had to promise and demonstrate that the <br /> new buttressing wall, including Area H which is the foundation for that wall, was constructed using <br /> only structural quality fill and compacted at one-foot intervals. Both the CDRMS Staff and CMC <br /> agreed that use of structural fill and adequate compaction is critical to the success of the design and <br /> thus is a requirement under Amendment No. 4. <br /> However, now it has come to light that no one. including DRMS and CMC, knows and can <br /> document what material is currently in Area H, and how it was placed and compacted. Area H is <br /> the foundation of the entire structure and thus the most critical component because any shift or <br /> failure in Area H affects that entire structure. <br /> During the review of the application for Amendment No. 4, it was uncontested that <br /> approximately 200 feet of Area H had already been, and was currently being, filled under the <br /> requirements of Amendment No. 3, which allowed the use of many materials with low or unknown <br /> structural qualities and thus a much lower quality control requirement. <br /> Of note, in Amendment No 4, CMC initially agreed to import and use "clean" fill. <br /> Amendment No. 4, Exhibit D, Page 4. In Adequacy Review No. 1 the CDRMS Staff did not accept <br /> the "only clean fill" standard and advised CMC that: <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.