GENERAL42490 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Findings: Your findings indicate CDPS permit COG 500809 was issued in 1991 and has not been updated since. Further, your findings indicate permit COG 500809 was only for storm water and not for process water. Our first S WNiP was dated .April 27, 1993 and, it is our understanding, this includes the tight to discharge both storm and process water (copy attached). Our revised S~VMP of October 1, 1997, as we understand it, also permits the discharge of both storm and process water (also attached). Additionally, it is our understanding that discharges from springs or other naturally occurring water, when combined with storm water discharges are exempted as allowed in paragraph 7B of our DCPS permit. Prior to the flood of April and May of ]999, we sized our containment pond to contain a "two year" water event. Until the flood of Apri] and May 1999, we had never had a discharge from our conrtinment facility. After the flood of April and May 1999, we reconstructed and increased the size of our water containment ponds to contain a "ten year" event and once agatin, we have not experienced a discharge. Additionally we rip-rapped (;rrmored) the sides of Red Creek. While Red Creek normally does not flow through the quarry, during the flood of April and May 1999, Red Creek overflowed its banks. ~~/e believe that by Rip-Rapping the creek, eve will prevent the overflow during future high water events. Rocky Mountain Materials and Asph:ilt has incorporated storm water management training into our educational program. Mr. Tom Smith, our Director of Quarry Operations, recently completed a Storm Water Management and Erosion Control course at the Rocky Mountain Educanon Center (certificate attached). Additionaly, we conduct daily inspections of the containment pond and spillway as well as fuel shortage areas. u/e regret the breach of our containment pond during the flood of April and May ]999. At the time of the breach, the sediment had been recently removed from the containment pond, therefore, the sediment found down stre;un from the contanment pond was not a result of this breach. Additionaly, the conttinment facilities above this pond did not breach during die April and May flood. ~C/Ftenever the breach of the containment pond occurred, it evas not physically possible to sample the water discharge. Whenever Red Creek flash flooded, the danger to human life was extremely likely and unsafe at the point of discharge. The creek was impacted further by drainage, water from ravines, sediment and other influences south of the pond. The water was severe enough to wash out culverts, trees, part of the roadway, channelize the creek and cause property damage all along the creek. It is important to reiterate that the sediment did not come from the quarry or the sediment pond, but from the sources mentioned above. The new, larger containment facility constructed after the Apri] and May flood of 1999 functioned properly and contained all the run off produced by the flood of August 1999.