ENFORCE36739 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

concern should perhaps be that the County Staff says ters of Spring Branch and given to the upstream landfill was intersected by the storm wa- its watershed. The single 60 inch culvert under the adjacent County road was in tact. This points to the fill material as a proba- ble point•of weakness in the culvert design, unless the hy- drologic event exceeded the 25 year 24 hour design event. The need for such fill and culverts in lieu of a streambed crossing should be called into question, and therefore, the problems may have been partly influenced by the CMLRD re- quired design. The engineering firm who designed the culverts should be given an opportunity to comment as well. Sediment within Spring Branch adjacent to the Fondis Mine was •noticeable, and no doubt added to the overall sediment Load of the braided stream. However, given that three 60 inch culverts were in place, it seems unlikely that obstruction of the access road crossing occurred in a manner that would exac- erbate the effects of height water and peak flows as indi- cated in Mr. Taylor's correspondence, below. Correspondence followed from Mr. Taylor (5/28/91) to Elbert County claiming damages resulting from the flood, and at- tributing those damages to the Fondis Mine. The correspon- dence appears to be largely unsupported accusations de- signed to inspire the interests of the CMLRD and DA, with predictable demands for revocation, negative Press, judge- ments or other agendas known only to Mr. Taylor. The net effect of Mr. Taylor's correspondence was to change the focus of the County on the planned expansion of the Fondis Mine. On 6/4/91, at a sequence of meetings, and an inspection of the site (see above), the range of possible components of a permit amendment were informally presented and discussed. It was agreed that the County must re-eval- uate the need to expand the Fondis Mine. Focus shifted to determining: 1) How to properly respond to the recent developments at the Fondis Mine. 2) Whether or not to expand the Fondis Mine or close it down. If expansion, how to cost effectively develop an acceptable permit application that addresses recent developments. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? A SUMMARY: FIRST: Mr. James R. Taylor's correspondence of May 28, 1991, and earlier, seem to demand immediate attention. The Correspondence of 6/15/91 to Frank G. Starkey, Elbert County Commissioners Office from Bradford Janes, Gambit, Inc. RE: Fondis 1X Mine - Summary Report.