ENFORCE36739 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be the case to the present day. In spite of the loss of fill around the culverts from recent storm water events, the major source of sediment is the access road, since overcasting of materials at the mine site has ceased. The design necessity of the "perched" aspect of the access road should be called into question, especially if it is to re- main located within the flood plain of Spring Branch. The access road location is also at fault. Had the access road avoided the present location, perhaps on the west aspect on the nearby hill side, the perched aspect of the road and its erosiveness could have been reduced. Additionally, locating the access road above the flood plain of Spring Branch may have been accomplished without sacrificing concerns for dust, noise, and vibration for ad- jacent landowners. Objections to the operation from the adjacent landowners immediately East of the access road was the major motivation for locating the access road in the flood plain of Spring Branch to begin with. Finally, Mr. Taylor's correspondence goes on to challenge the suitability of the operation from its inception, and makes adversarial demands for its termination, none of which have come to fruition to date. 7 MAY 1990: Mr. Taylor requests intervention and termi- nation of operations by the CMLRD after no response to his previous correspondence (above) by the Elbert County Commissioners. Actually, some sort of contact to diffuse conflict may have proved helpful at this point, in retro- spect, if only to assure others of the County's ability to be responsive to citizen concerns without prejudicing their merit in advance. However, there is no indication that the County was sent a copy of this correspondence. 16 MAY 1990: The CMLRD responds to Mr. Taylor's request of 5/7/90, and indicates a compliance inspection will oc- cur. It indicates a finding of a violation must occur, and corrective action must fail to occur before revocation of a permit can occur. Revocation of the permit reflects Mr. Taylor's singular intent at this time. As the subsequent CMLRD Technical Revision will testify, revocation never oc- curs. 9 JULY 1990: Per James R. Taylor's correspondence of 5/28/91, and before .the CMLRD can inspect the property, a significant hydrological event (aka, a flood) hits Spring Branch, including the section adjacent to the Fondis Mine. Correspondence of 6/15/91 to Frank G. Starkey, Elbert County Commissioners Office from Bradford Janes, Gambit, Inc. RE: Fondis 1V Mine - Summary Report.