GENERAL39013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;. in the natural drainage. Second, Mr. Fifield's second paragraph states "his report supports our opinion that the quarry was a significant source of sediment to downstream properties." It is not clear what Mr. Fifield means by this statement. The scouring and conveyance of sediment occurred in Red Creek. The scouring etc. was a natural phenomenon which, in all likelihood, would have occurred even if the quarry was not in existence. That is the purpose of a creek, stream or river; to transport sediments downstream. And, most of the time, the sediments are conveyed downstream during lame storm, events (or heavy snow melt). In no way does the inspection report support his opinion that the quarry was a source of sediment to downstream properties. Tn fact, other than the material from the breached sediment pond, the Division has no evidence that any sediment load even left the mined site. Third, in Mr. Fifield's second paragraph, he also says that the stream banks were eroded. This is true. There was obvious erosion of the creek banks in Red Creek. This, again, occurred during the April -May storm events and this, again, is a natural phenomenon which occurs in most drainages during flood events. Mr. Fifield says that the report states that "the amount of material that was collected in the constructed basin is several feet thick over 1-2 acres." It is assummed that Mr. Fifield understands that the "constructed basin" is not the sediment pond. This is the backsloped area near the mined highwall. The operator is required to maintain a Swale azea near the active mining site to capture sediment runoff from the mined quarry face. The Swale is created by backsloping the pit floor into the highwall. If sediments do escape the backsloped Swale, they will be directed to the sediment pond. The size of the Swale is dictated by the size of the actively mined area. Fourth, Mr. Fifield's statement that "when flows discharge from a sediment containment system with high velocities, little sediment is actually captured by the structure." is partly true. It depends how long the water remains in the structure (residence time). Also, Mr. Fifield's comment that "it is our opinion that at least three to 10 times the amount of sediment collected in the construction basin actually flowed downstream during the flood event." may not be correct since the backsloped azea may not have discharged (overtopped). The Division agrees with Mr. Fifield's statement "that stringent sediment and erosion control practices must be continually implemented for this mining operation." Stringent sediment and erosion control practices must be continually implemented for all the mining operations in the state. However, Mr. Fifield states that "enforcement of this policy must be the responsibility of the DMG." This is incorrect. Under the existing MOU between DMG and WQCD the DMG does not have jurisdiction over stormwater runoff other than reviewing the adequacy of the design and implementation of the stormwater runoff controls required by [he WQCD. Also, if a sediment control structure is required by WQCD, it must be incorporated into the approved DMG permit for maintenance and bonding purposes. A copy of the June 4, 1999 inspection report was sent to the WQCD so they are aware of the situation at the Red Canyon Quarry. Pursuant to the MOU, the DMG will not enforce against an operator for lack of a CDPS permit for point source discharges of process water or for stormwater discharees.