ENFORCE36868 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_, ,. e DIVl510N OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Depanmem nl NaWral Reswrces ~j I t I 1 Sherman St.. Room 21$ Denver, Colorado 8W03 Phane~ (3011 866 3 567 FAX: 1103) ri3?~810G April 1, 1998 Mr Charlie Knox Planning Director San Miguel County PO Box 548 Telluride CO 81435 ~?'A"CF_ ~r COLORADO III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~,,.~, ~~~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Rnv Romer Cmrernor Wme~ 5 Loehhead E~ecmive D¢tt[ue Michael B Lang Urcis~on Dveaur Re: Division of Minerals and Geology Enforcement Actions and Conclusions, Mud Slide, Pathfinder Pit, M-94-113 Dear Mr Knox: Per your request, I reviewed the sequence of events regarding the occurrence of a mud slide at the referenced permit and the actions taken by the Division of Minerals and Geology and the Mined Land Reclamation Board as a result of [he event. I am providing copies of all the documents on file relating to the mud slide event and will provide a short narrative about the content of each document. Documents 1 and 2 relate to an anonymous complaint received by the Division on April 8, 1998 in regards to erosion controls and din being pushed over atwenty-foot cliff. Documents 3, 4 and 5 relate to an onsite inspection of the site due to the complaint. I observed a small mud flow during this inspection but could not tell if the disturbance was in or out of the permit area since the west permit markers were not up. The operator was not pushing dirt over atwenty-foot cliff. However, the operator did construct a 2-3 foot berm on the west side of the permit area. The operator was required to re-install permit markers on the west side. Documents 6, 7, 8, and 9 are copies of a July, 1996 inspection which was conducted after the operator notified the Division that the west permit boundary was marked. The small mud flow had turned into a large Flow which slightly affected the southwest corner of the permit area. However, most of the disturbance from the flow was outside of the permit area. It appeared, the flow was triggered by melting snow, recent rain events and old rotting aspen trees that had been buried on the flank of the hill some years ago. The Division felt this mud flow event was a possible violation of the Act andfor Rules and cited the operator with a PV. The Division felt that if a violation occurred, the operator should incorporate the disturbed area into the existing permit. Document 10 is a copy of the Reason to Believe letter sent [o Mr Smith (the operator at the time of the mud flow event). This required Mr Smith to appear at the August 28-29, 1996 Board meeting. A Mined Land Recalamation Board meeting was held on August 29, 1996. I appeared on behalf of the Division, Mr Smith appeared on behalf of Pathfinder Development, Inc., and Mr John Sliman appeared on behalf of Southway Construction, Inc. (the new operator). All the evidence was presented and the Board made a decision that the operator was not in violation of the Act and/or the Rules since the mud