Laserfiche WebLink
• (Page 2) • <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-89-029 <br />INSPECTION ~ATE_1/30/2001 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS TAS <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />1. A site ._nspection was conducted in response to a written complaint recieved from Mr. Ted <br />Cox on January 9, 2001. Present during the site inspection was Connie Davis of Aggregate <br />Industries, Inc. This inspector evaluated concerns noted in Mr. Cox's letter and found that <br />the Longmont Distel Operation appears to be in compliance with the mining and reclamation <br />plan for Pe:=mit M-89-029 as well as the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of <br />Construction Materials 34-32.5-101 Et.Seq., C.R.S., 1995. It should be noted that a similar <br />complaint letter was submitted to the Division in early 2000; resulting in a follow-up site <br />inspection and several minor corrective actions by the operator. (Please see attached <br />correspondence). The following are concerns noted in Mr. Cox's January 9, 2001 letter and <br />the Divisio.n's response to each concern. <br />2. Dust Problems: Fugitive dust is a concern regulated under the authority of the Air Quality <br />Control Di v;.sion of the Colorado Department of Public Health & the Environment. Any concerns <br />relating to dust control at the Longmont Distel Operation should be directed to such <br />Division. <br />3. Odor Problems: Odor is a concern that may be related to air emissions and therefore <br />regulated by the Air Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health & <br />the Envirorunent. Any concerns relating to odor at the Longmont Distel Operation should be <br />directed to such Division. (The Weld County Planning Department may also provide assistance) <br />4. Wildlifo: The operator was not dewatering and discharging offsite at the time of <br />inspection. Ms. Davis noted that the operator has not needed co conduct dewatering for quite <br />some time dire to the dry conditions experienced throughout the Front Range. This inspector <br />noted that the operator was managing pit water by routing this water from active working <br />areas to either a wash pond or a partially reclaimed pond. The operator's methods for water <br />management were inspected and there was no evidence of any possible water quality related <br />impacts. <br />This inspector did notice a significant number of stressed and/or dead cottonwood trees (6-12 <br />inches in d:.ameter) along the northern portions of the Distel and Bigelow properties. Most <br />of these trees appear to be either inside or adjacent to the permit boundary. It is possible <br />that the trees may have been directly and adversely affected by the mining operation and <br />water management activities; however, there is insufficient evidence at this time to confirm <br />such a hypothesis. Ms. Davis confirmed during the site inspection that the operator has <br />committed in the reclamation plan to replace any cottonwoods (live or dead) that are removed <br />during mining. This inspector also noted that cottonwood trees near several private <br />landowners immediately to the east appear "healthy" and unaffected by the neighboring mining <br />operation. (It would be helpful for the complaintant, Mr. Cox, to identify the location or <br />locations of- the dead cottonwood trees noted in his January 9, 2001 letter to discern if they <br />truly are located off-site and to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim that the <br />trees have Keen directly and adversely affected by the Longmont Distel Operation). <br />This inspector notes that the operator will maintain a minimum setback distance of 100 feet <br />between the mine pit and St. Vrain Creek or Boulder Creek, thus minimizing possible impacts <br />to wildlife. There were approximately 6 bald eagles and a hawk roosting in the cottonwood <br />trees aloncr the St. Vrain Creek immediately north of the Distel property during the <br />inspection. These raptors did not appear co be adversely affected by the operator's current <br />activities. This inspector also notes that the operator adequately addressed concerns <br />expressed by the Division of Wildlife during the recent (December, 2000) permitting of <br />Amendment No. 3. Such concerns included possible impacts to bald eagles as well as prairie <br />