Laserfiche WebLink
sss <br />JOHN W. StTHERS <br />Attorney General <br />CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN <br />Chief Deputy Attorney General <br />DANIEL D. DOMENICO <br />Solicitor General <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DEPARTMENT OF LAW <br />OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />STATE SERVICES BUILDING <br />1525 Sherman Street - 7th Floor <br />Denver Colorado 80203 <br />Phone (303) 866-4500 <br />pECEIVEC <br />July 20, 2009 <br />Steve and Kim McIntyre <br />The McIntyre Law Office <br />1220 East Divot Drive <br />Tempe, Arizona, 85283 <br />JUL 2 4 2009 <br />Di 41" of Recloms ion, <br />Miring and Safety <br />Re: Yule Quarry, Permit M-1999-058, Complaint of Off-Site Damage. <br />Dear Mr. and Mrs. McIntyre: <br />I represent the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety and I have been <br />asked to respond to your recent correspondence. The Division received your most recent cost <br />estimate dated July 12, 2009 as well as an e-mail correspondence dated July 14, 2009. As you <br />are aware, this matter is currently set for formal hearing before the Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board on August 12-13, at which point the Board will make a determination <br />regarding potential violations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction <br />of Construction Materials ("Act") by Colorado Stone Quarries Inc. However, the Board will <br />not be making a determination regarding liability for damage to the foot trail bridges, as the <br />Division does not believe this damage is within the Division or Board's jurisdiction as granted <br />in the Act. <br />As was stated in the Division's June 26, 2009 letter, the access road is not included in <br />the mining and reclamation permit. Further, snow removal from this road is not considered a <br />"mining operation" as defined in the Act (C.R.S. 34-32.5-103(13)) because the road is not <br />considered "affected land" as defined in C.R.S. 34-32.5-103(1). Though Colorado Stone <br />appears to have caused the damage to the foot trail bridges, snowy plowing activities do not fall <br />within the jurisdictional authority ofDRMS or the Board as specified in the Act because the <br />snow plowing took place on a private road that is not included in the DRMS reclamation <br />permit. Therefore, jurisdiction to determine civil liability in this matter lies with the district <br />court. Although the cost estimates will be added to the DRMS file, please understand that <br />DRMS is not seeking corrective actions or civil penalties related to the damaged foot bridges at <br />the August formal hearing as DBMS does not have jurisdiction to pursue such an action. <br />Should you determine to seek damages, you will have to do so in a separate civil suit in district <br />court.