2021-10-27_REVISION - M1976007UG (31)

Home Browse Search

Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety October 27, 2021 Page 2 3601176.2 party who has now filed a timely objection to the Application. Each of these issues is addressed in turn below. 1. Protect the Hogback’s Objections to the Application Protect the Hogback objects to the Application because Acme Brick Company has failed to meet its burden with respect to at least three of the essential elements required for approval: (1) the Application is incomplete; (2) the proposed expanded mining operation is contrary to the land use laws of Jefferson County, Colorado, which are binding on the proposed use; and (3) the Application does not include a sufficiently detailed reclamation plan. First, the Application is not complete and therefore does not satisfy Section 34-32.5-115(4)(a), C.R.S. Although DRMS Staff determined that the Application was “[a]dequate as submitted” on September 8, 2021, Staff’s September 27, 2021 letter to Acme Brick Company’s consultant identifies significant deficiencies and omissions throughout the Application. Rather than restating all of those defects here, Protect the Hogback expressly incorporates by reference all of the deficiencies identified in Staff’s September 27, 2021 letter. By way of example, the Application lacks critical and required information with respect to all of the following:  The Application is internally inconsistent with respect to very basic information, such as the acreage that will be affected by the proposed expansion of operations and the frequency and extent of anticipated mining operations. Without this basic information, it is impossible to understand and evaluate Acme Brick Company’s proposed mining plan.  The Application fails to describe the extent of proposed blasting and fails to include any geotechnical, vibration, or other engineering analysis which might possibly demonstrate that proposed blasting will not adversely affect off-site areas as required by Rule 6.5(4). This issue is of particular concern to Protect the Hogback given the steep slopes in the vicinity of the mine and the potential for landslides to affect properties far beyond the limits of the mine. Aerial photos of the site appear to show evidence of past landslides, which may or may not have been caused by past mining activity but regardless are evidence of unstable slopes.  The Application fails to address whether the proposed expansion will encounter or impact any of the unreclaimed legacy mining operations and the associated contamination that continues to persist at the site.  In addressing the potential wildlife impacts of its expanded operation, Acme Brick Company relies solely upon an obviously outdated June 13, 1977 letter from the Colorado Department of Wildlife, which Acme Brick Company did not even append to its Application. This is especially critical in light of the fact that Jefferson County previously identified the site as a “Potential Endangered Species Habitat”