2006-06-12_REVISION - M1978314 (2)

Home Browse Search

Mined Land Reclamation Board June 12, 2006 Page 6 Boazd until March 8, 2005, just seven days before the Boazd's approval expired. Given this pattern, the Board should be concerned about King Mountain's reliability on the issue of fundamental importance to the Boazd: King Mountain's ability to operate and reclaim the affected azea responsibly.° 3. King Mountain's Application For Permit Conversion Should Be Denied Because The Proposed Gravel Pit Expansion Will Have Signifuant And Adverse Impacts. Even if the Board determines that it has jurisdiction over King Mountain's Permit Conversion Application, the application should be denied because of the significant and adverse impact the proposed expansion will have on wildlife, conservation and property values, transportation and safety, aesthetic and recreational concerns, and water rights -- all of which the legislature clearly intended to protect when it passed the Act. Specifically, C.R.S. §34-32.5- ]02(1)expresses the legislative intent underlying the Act: The general assembly hereby declazes that the extraction of construction materials for government and private enterprise and the reclamation of land affected by such extraction aze necessary and proper activities that are compatible. It is the intent of the general assembly to foster and encourage the development of an economically sound and stable extraction materials industry and to encourage the orderly development of the state's natural resources while requiring those persons involved in extraction operations to reclaim land affected so that it may be gut to a use beneficial to the people of this state. It is the further intent of the general assembly to conserve natural resources, aid in the protection of wildlife and aquatic resources, establish agricultural, recreational, residential, and industrial sites, and protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare ojthe people ojthis state. C.R.S. §34-32.5-102(1) (emphasis added). Here, the azea at issue is primarily agricultural rangeland, which also provides a large and relatively undisturbed landscape for wildlife. The former operation (before its transfer to King Mountain) was a small, thirty-yeaz old, family-owned and operated gravel pit that produced very little gravel annually. The special use permit governing that small-scale operation was set to expire because the permitted azea was almost exhausted. King Mountain intends to transform the gravel pit into a major regional mining operation of up to 341 acres with potentially over 250,000 tons of gravel to be extracted and transported annually. Accordingly, the requested expansion and its obvious and inevitable effects will be significant and detrimental. 4 On a related issue, because the typical cost of construction in this remote area is frequently double the cost of construction in urban areas (due to a lack of competitive earthmoving contractors and other trades and labor), the amount of the reclamation cost estimate and the bond set by the Board are inadequate. \\\DE - 27888/000/ - 286818 vl