Laserfiche WebLink
jurisdictional authority of DRMS as specified in the Act because the snow plowing took place on a private <br />road that is not included in the DRMS reclamation permit. Jurisdiction to determine civil liability in this <br />matter lies with the District Court. <br />The secondary issue regards sedimentation control and off-site damage. DRMS notes several deficiencies <br />in the control of sedimentation from the marble quarry activities. Deposition of what is referred to as <br />marble slurry on the slopes directly below the access road is problematic. The uncontrolled slurry <br />dumping is occurring at two locations; 1) on the unpermitted steep slope just in front of the main portal <br />and: 2) on a pad above the generator where the material is to dry out so it can be backfilled within the <br />quarry. The slurry is being dumped over the edge which creates several issues that must be addressed. <br />High precipitation events and spring runoff in the area wash the sediments down gradient through the <br />large marble blocks to Yule Creek. The sedimentation catchments specified in the permit are poorly <br />maintained so as to be non-existent; therefore, sediment is going directly into Yule Creek. Permit maps <br />clearly show that sedimentation control structures are required at two locations near the bottom of the <br />steep slope and above Yule Creek. A sedimentation pond at the main portal entrance was noted as poorly <br />maintained as well. The pond was full of sediment resulting in sediment laden water running across the <br />road to the unpermitted steep slope previously mentioned which goes to the creek. There was no <br />retention time for the pond to affectively settle out sediments coming off the access road and dump prior <br />to exiting as noted. A jersey barrier directly across from the sedimentation pond was missing and <br />sediment had apparently been pushed over the edge. Blade marks, tire tracks and deposited slurry clearly <br />document these activities. In 2007, Colorado Rock provided documentation of remedial measures taken <br />and gave their assurance that no further dumping in the area was to occur. Photo comparisons of the <br />2007 inspection photos and the 2009 infraction show little difference. Clearly the Division's request to <br />cease the activity went unheeded. <br />Per the Act, specifically CRS 34-32.5-116(4)(h) and Rule 3.1.6 (1) the operator shall minimize disturbance to <br />the prevailing hydrologic balance. Sediment loading to Yule Creek by direct activities from the mining <br />operation and lack of maintenance is noted as failure to minimize disturbance to the hydrological balance. <br />Per CRS 34-32.5-116(4)(1) and Rule 3.1.5(3) all grading shall be done in a manner to control erosion and <br />siltation of the affected lands, to protect areas outside of the affected land from slides and damage <br />occurring during the mining operation and reclamation. Sediment deposition on unpermitted areas <br />adjacent to the affected area and into Yule Creek is noted as failure to control erosion and siltation, to <br />protect areas outside of the affected land from damage. <br />An unrelated issue to the McIntyre complaint is Colorado Stone's use of a staging area in the town of <br />Marble for storage of marble blocks. Colorado Stone stated to both inspectors that the site is now being <br />used to stockpile cut blocks of marble that have not been sold. This is a change in the use of the area <br />from a historical staging area for sold product to an offsite stockpile area. Per section34-32.5-103(1) of <br />the Act and Rule1.1 (3) "Affect Land" includes storage areas. Therefore, prior to when Colorado Stone <br />began storing or stockpiling unsold marble product at the lower site, an amendment to the permit was <br />required to incorporate the storage area into in its permit area. The unpermitted offsite stockpile area <br />is noted as failure to protect areas outside of the affected land from damage.