Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. The MLRB interpreted its own regulation, C.M.R. 1.1(3), in a manner that <br />is in direct conflict with the plain language of the rule. According to C.M.R. <br />1.1(3), the definition of "affected land" is the land that will be disturbed as a <br />result of the mining operation. The definition does not include off-site roads that <br />existed prior to the application for a mining permit and that were constructed for <br />purposes unrelated to the proposed mining operation unless the off-site road will <br />be "substantially upgraded to support the mining operation." C.M.R. 1.1(3). <br />Pursuant to the Colorado Departrnent of Transportation ("CDOT") Highway <br />Access Permit issued to the Applicant on August 23, 2005, Highway 119 will be <br />substantially upgraded and widened to support the quarry operation. <br />D. The MLRB erroneously endorsed an inappropriately narrow reading of the <br />definition and inappropriately relied on its unwritten and undocumented "policy" <br />of considering property that is within existing government rights-of--way to be <br />outside of affected lands. See Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order, <br />paragraphs 15-17. The MLRB's failure to properly define the scope of the <br />"affected land" within the Applicant's proposed mining operation results in an <br />incomplete application that should have been denied. Further, proper application <br />of the definition to this Application would place more of the Wastewater <br />Treatment Plant within the two hundred (200) foot radius, raising additional <br />concern that the mining operation will adversely affect the stability of significant, <br />valuable, and permanent manmade structures within two hundred (200) feet of the <br />affected land. <br />E. The MLRB erroneously concluded, without the support of substantial <br />evidence in the record and with significant credible evidence to the contrary, that <br />the Applicant's blasting plan poses "no possibility, absent anon-compliant event, <br />that vibration levels [from blasting at the quarry] will exceed commonly <br />acceptable levels." See Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order, pazagraph <br />12. It is, at this time, impossible for the Applicant to meet the standards set forth <br />in C.M.R. 6.4,19(b) and C.M.R. 6.5(4), which require proof that the mining <br />operation "shall not" and/or "will not" adversely affect off-site structures within <br />the two hundred (200) foot radius. <br />F. The MLRB inaccurately concluded that the proposed revegetation plan is <br />sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of C.M.R. 3.1.10 and C.M.R. 6.4.5. <br />Similarly, the MLRB concluded, without support of substantial evidence in the <br />record and with significant credible evidence to the contrary, that the bond set for <br />the MMRR Quarry Application is adequate under C.M.R. 4.2.1(1) to cover the <br />costs of revegetation. Moreover, although C.M.R. 4.2.1(1) requires that all <br />financial warranties be set and maintained at the actual current cost to fulfill the <br />reclamation plan, the Board stated at pazagraph 39 that "the amount of the <br />reclamation bond can be adjusted at any time if the Division or Boazd determines <br />an adjustment is necessary," rather than imposing a bond to fully cover the cost of <br />5 <br />3/1/06 <br />Q: I USERSIBHVIMGIMlNMG APPLICATION-MMRR QUARRYUPPEALICOMPLAINT-FINAL-2.DOC <br />