Laserfiche WebLink
<br />17 JULY 1990: Gambit, Inc. is invited to Elbert County <br />via F. Starkey to discuss a possible role in environmental <br />assessment of the County's mining operations. A visit is <br />made to the Fondis Mine. <br />17 JULY 1990 OBSERVATIONS AT THE FONDIS MINE: <br />1. Pit side slopes were heavily eroded and the pit floor, <br />though near level, drained into the adjacent Spring Branch. <br />2. No berms existed at the site. <br />3. No soil salvage was observed. <br />4. The access road was washed out with an apx. 12 - 24 <br />inch culvert evident, and obviously undersized for the <br />event. <br />5. Significant sediment was observed in Spring Branch <br />next to the mine site, yet no attempt was made'to inspect <br />downstream sedimentation. <br />while the 17 July 1990 inspection anticipated the CMLRD <br />comments and recommendation made in the CMLRD inspection of <br />9/14/90, no further action was requested of Gambit, Inc. <br />Regardless, Elbert County was determined to resolve the <br />matter using its own resources, which it did successfully, <br />culminating in an approved CMLRD Technical Revision on <br />12/11/90. <br />The County ultimately relied upon an outside engineering <br />company to complete a hydrologic study and recommend cul- <br />vert designs for the access road crossing over Spring <br />Branch. The County was also successful in fending off sev- <br />eral other written assaults by James R. Taylor. <br />This success came in spite of the fact that the design and <br />erosive properties of the access road were never called <br />into account by the CMLRD. Nor did the CMLRD take issue <br />with concurrent reclamation of the sloped portions of the <br />pit, failure to salvage soil resources, failure to con- <br />struct required berms, and other clear violations of the <br />original permit. <br />Additionally, the resolve to use rip rap appears to be an <br />unnecessary, expensive, and useless effort to treat the <br />symptoms and not the cause of problems at the site and the <br />impacted portion of Spring Branch. Had some representation <br />been available, this may not have complicated existing con- <br />ditions, since its easier to defend not using a course of <br />action before it's agreed to as to after it has been given <br />credibility by mutual agreement. <br />The CMLRD "conditionally approved" the Technical Revision <br />on 12/11/90, to wit: <br />Correspondence of 6/15/91 to Frank G. Starkey, Elbert County <br />Commissioners Office from Bradford Janes, Gambit, Inc. RE: Fondis V <br />Mine - Summary Report. <br />