Laserfiche WebLink
8. At the hearing, Mr. Bascom testified regarding the Operator's actions taken as <br />a result of the May 26, 2009 inspection. A new slurry drying area is in operation located <br />near the south end of the permit area. The Operator is no longer dumping marble slurry. The <br />Operator undertook temporary actions within hours of the May 26, 2009 inspection. <br />9. The Division conducted a follow up inspection of the site on August 3, 2009. <br />The August 9, 2009 inspection report states in part that "the temporary efforts appear to have <br />stopped sedimentation from leaving the permitted site. Marble slurry dumping at the original <br />dump area has ceased and been moved to an upper bench well within the permit boundaries" <br />The report continues "[a] temporary sedimentation structure has been erected within the <br />permit boundaries to prevent slurry excursions off site ... The sedimentation pond at the <br />entrance to the quarry is noted as being cleaned out and holding some water." Regarding the <br />impact on hydrological balance the report concludes that "[w]hile other areas of past impact <br />were noted no further impacts to the hydrological balance were observed." <br />10. The evidence shows that mine waste material was dumped over the eastern <br />edge of the site and was deposited beyond the permit boundary. The sedimentation <br />catchments that were specified by the reclamation permit for the site were so poorly <br />maintained so as to be non-existent. Mine waste sediment was flowing into Yule Creek. The <br />sedimentation pond at the main entry was also poorly maintained. The sediment loading to <br />Yule Creek by the Operator and the Operator's lack of maintenance of the sedimentation <br />controls is a failure to minimize disturbance to the hydrological balance. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />11. 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 />12. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-116(4)(h), C.R.S., the Operator is responsible for <br />minimizing disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the <br />surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and ground water <br />systems, both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation. Here, the <br />Operator's actions caused marble slurry to be deposited down the hillside and outside of the <br />permit area and into Yule Creek. The Operator's lack of maintenance of sedimentation <br />controls resulted in marble slurry depositing outside of the affected land. Therefore, the <br />Operator is in violation of § 34-32.5-116(4)(h), C.R.S., for failing to protect the prevailing <br />hydrologic balance on the affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quality of <br />water in surface and groundwater systems during the mining operation. <br />13. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-124 (2), C.R.S., the Board may issue a Cease and Desist <br />Order prohibiting any further activities at the site that would further damage the prevailing <br />hydrological balance. <br />14. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-124 (7), C.R.S., the Board may impose a civil penalty of <br />not less than $100 per day nor more than $1,000 per day for each day during which the <br />Colorado Stone Quarries, Inc. <br />Yule Marble Quarry 3 <br />M-1999-058 <br />MV- 2009-023