Laserfiche WebLink
stormwater conveyance structure which allowed runoff to saturate an offsite hill slope <br />resulting in hill slope failure. Mud, rocks and tress washed down the slope to the gulch, <br />followed by muddy runoff continuing down the gulch. The disturbance was approximately <br />0.46 acres. The slope failure occurred at the Level 6 pad of the permit area and continued <br />down the mountain to Deadman Gulch approximately 3400 feet, overtopping a culvert and <br />spilling onto a State highway. <br />4. On May 19, 2007 an RTB letter was sent to the Operator and on May 21, 2008 <br />and Inspection Report and photos were sent to the Operator describing observations and <br />possible violations. The notice of possible violations was based on allegations of: failure to <br />minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance; failure to protect area outside the affected land <br />from slides or damage; and failure to stabilize and protect the surface of the affected land <br />from erosion and water pollution, violations of §34-32-116(7)(g), (h) and (i), C.R.S. <br />5. The Division is requesting an interim bond to cover on and offsite repairs; <br />once repairs are complete the Division will recalculate the bond on the permit amendment. <br />6. Karmen King testified on behalf of the Operator. Ms King presented a <br />handout with copies of the slide presentation she made and a color aerial photograph of the <br />site. Ms. King indicated in the Fall of 2007 the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") <br />requested a channel be constructed on the site for water runoff. She indicated the BLM and <br />the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") insisted a channel <br />for the water run off was needed; it is her opinion the channel collected and magnified the <br />problem. <br />7. Ms. King also indicated Deadman Gulch is a fault zone and there are no fish in <br />the gulch. She noted the hydrology of the system has been plaguing the system because of <br />toe seeps. The Operator is currently drilling at the mine. The Operator has not yet submitted <br />the engineering designs to the Division, they will go into the Amendment, including the <br />increase in the permit area. <br />8. Kye Abraham testified that he began ownership of the site in 1982 and during <br />that time he has never seen flows close to approaching ten percent of what he saw this year. <br />He indicated he has committed to take steps to fix the problems at the site, he will amend the <br />permit and he asked the Board to allow him to finish work at the site. He indicated the only <br />reason the channel was constructed was to address the concerns of the BLM and CDPHE. <br />Mr. Abraham indicated he is doing what the Division has suggested, although he does not <br />agree with the staff's recommendation for a fine because of the unusual weather conditions <br />this past winter and he does not agree with staff recommendations to cease and desist mining. <br />9. Mr. Oswald indicated the Division had no objection to the Operator continuing <br />to drill, but Mr. Oswald recommended the Operator stop work on the channel and cease and <br />desist the construction of the diversion channel until the amendment is submitted and <br />approved by the Division. <br />Golden Wonder Mine 2 <br />Permit No. M-1978-091