Laserfiche WebLink
are now defined by the unsupported "hanging" walls of the landslide headscarp and opening <br />of concurrent tension cracks at the top of the slope, above both the south and north sides of <br />the rockslide ... It is not so much a matter of 'if, but rather `when' this unstable block will <br />fall." CGS Report p. 4. <br />22. The MSHA Memo on pp. 10-11 states that "in addition to the main slide mass, <br />the secondary cracks and scarps at the south peak area suggests that a large part of the pit <br />slope to the southwest of the main slide mass is at a critical stability condition (safety factor <br />at or nearly equal to unity), and a second large slope failure could potentially occur at any <br />time." MSHA estimates that a second slide could potentially expand the failure area by up to <br />eight acres in area and add about 1.3 million cubic yards in volume. <br />23. The Operator secured the area after the slide and posted warning signs. The <br />Operator also hired a night watchman and security guard to prevent trespassing. No mining <br />has taken place at the site since the slide. <br />24. The Division asserts that greater than 25percent and up to 40 percent of the <br />active mining area in Area H was exposed at the time of the slide. The increase in the active <br />mining area did not follow the approved reclamation plan and contributed to the massive <br />slope failure. <br />25. The Operator testified at the hearing that they mined more than should have <br />been mined. <br />26. The Division also asserts that because the slide happened on an area of the <br />quarry that had already been reclaimed, that the Operator did not protect areas outside of the <br />affected area from damage. <br />27. The MSHA Report on p. 3 states that "the southern portion of the east-facing <br />pit slope had been reclaimed by partial filling of the benches with a wedge of soil that was <br />revegetated." At the hearing, the Division testified, and the Operator did not dispute, that the <br />slide affected land that had already been reclaimed. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />28. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to §§ 34-32.5-104 through <br />107, and 124 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction <br />Materials, §§ 34-32.5-101 through 125, C.R.S. (2008) ("Act"). <br />29. Section 34-32.5-116(4)(1), C.R.S., states that "areas outside of the affected <br />land shall be protected from slides or damage occurring during the mining operation and <br />reclamation." Section 34-32.5-103(1) defines "affected land" as meaning "the surface of an <br />area within the state where a mining operation is being or will be conducted, which surface is <br />disturbed as a result of an operation." The definition lists several areas which are included as <br />affected land. The definition of affected land specifically excludes "land that has been <br />reclaimed pursuant to an approved plan ...." Here, the slide affected land that had already <br />been reclaimed. The land that had already been reclaimed is not included in the affected area <br />of the mining operation. When the slide occurred it damaged parts of the reclaimed areas. <br />Continental Materials <br />Pike View Quarry, M-1977-211 <br />MV-2009-012