INSPEC02731 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~` i Paye ~, MI^!E ID A OF, ?ROSPECTINC ID 9 M-1989-029 INSPECTI ~N DATE J/28/00 INSPECTOR'S IDIITIALS CL OBSERVATIONS This inspection was done in response to a compla,nt received on March lu, ?000, by the Division. The complaint included a specific list of problems, outlined below. as well as photographs with several more problems mentioned. I) Dust problems The day of the inspection was overcast, and it had rained the night before. so this was not the optimum nme to observe dust actrvi[y. However, from what was observed during the tour of the site, it appeared that the stockpiles in the processing area were stiff-ictentfy contained and that no dust was blowing away from the mvn industrial area. Some dust was observed rising from tht: main excavation area; the stockpiles and excavation area are watered 3 to 4 times a day via water [tuck 2) Odor pcoblems As was ,mentioned previously, it had rained the day prior to the inspection, so it was unlikely a significant odor problem could be observed. Mark Helm mentioned that an adjacent lot contains a wck yard, with fifteen or so vehicles stored on-site, which could al:;o be at least partially responsible for any odor problems. CAMAS is currently operating within the parameters of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment s air emissions permit. 3) Wildlife: (a) that dewatering had killed well over 100 bin.-l2in. cottonwood trees off the permitted area. At this time, none of the trees in the adjacent area have much cover on them, however, many do display signs of budding and life. Wl»le some trees within the permit area may have died due to either old age or from the effects of dewatering, no signifcmt stands of dead trees wen: noted during this inspection. However, a second inspection will be made later this year to follow-up on this issue, when a better comparison can be made between health and dying trees. It would be appreciated if the complainant could specify the exact area where the die-off is occurring, so that DM G can document the occurrence and ask rho[ appropria[e rnitigadon measures be taken. (b) that dewatering is done with buried asphalt and concrete submersed around the dewatering pumps, which discharge directly to the St. Main river. An area where concrete which has been slated for recycling is being stored, has become a secondary holding pond for runoff from the sire. Water From the process and stockpile areas was originally pumped either into the SL Main (in azcordance with the ivPGES pettrti[) or to the completed lake on the east side of the site. Asa [empotary measure, this water was placed in the shallow depression which abuts the concrete storage area When the water level rises. high enough, the water discharges through a pipe under the adjacent road into the constructed lake. This is not in the current permi[ mining plan. While there is no asphalt in this storage area, and the concrete has been cured (thus decreasing the likelihood of any contamination to the water), the permit must be revised to either include these measures for water and concrete storage, or the water must be siphoned over [o the approved lake for permanent storage. The concrete storage area would then not be used as a water containment area in the funrre. (See PBI) (c) that wildlife in the area are slowly losing their habita[. Many ducks, geese, and other birds were observed in the area. The 100' setback from the property line near the St. Vrain river is still being observed. No other effects on the local wildlife could be pin-pointed. However, this inspection report will be forwarded on to the Division of Wildlife, so that they will be aware of concerns expressed about the site. 4) Property ~~afues The Division of Minerals and Geology does no[ have jurisdiction over property value concerns. All land-use questions and coning problems should be direc[ed to the County Planning and Toning depanment, which can analyze whether mining is an appropria~.e industry to be developed in this area.