REP33845 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Wildlife Resources Assessment Cemex "C" Pi[ and CKD Disposal Si[e Page 13 ' Drastic mitigation includes treatment of the water, removal of the water, or closing the pit. Water treatment does not address the continued influx of water of water into the pit, and may be a hazardous operation of its own. Closing of the pit simply transfers the problem, as CKD disposal will need to continue somewhere else near the cement plant. No wildlife has been documented as being injured or killed by the water in the bottom of the pit. The potential for wildlife to be damaged in the future in any significant numbers is low to very low. The matter therefore does not require immediate drastic attention, and ' is most effectively approached as a risk management and diligence issue. Diligence efforts should focus on clearly understanding the problem (identifying and controlling the source of the water), and developing a longer term and permanent solution. 6.7 Mitigation Recommendations For the short term, no action or only minor mitigation efforts are recommended. There is a low probability of wildlife contacting the water in the bottom of the pit, and any future loss of life would be minimal in a relative sense. For example, up to 230 deer have been killed per year from automobile collisions on US Highway 36 between Boulder and Lyons. Fortunately, this number has declined in recent years. By contrast, no deer have ever been documented in "C" Pit. The loss of an occasional rock dove that wanders or falls into the water is not considered a significant impact deserving of major or drastic mitigation options. If minor mitigation is required in the short term, then gating of the access road would prevent access to the pit by deer or other large mammals. Movable fence, such as that used around construction sites, could also be placed along the top of the leading edge of the CKD bank. The rest of "C" Pit is blocked from access by high walls. All fencing and gates should be 8' tall. Avian wildlife could still approach the water, but only those with high flight trajectories. It is considered far more effective for the protection of wildlife, as well as other issues such as addressing water quality in "A" Pit, that an effective means to permanently address the issue be developed and implemented, and that this effort not be diluted with short term drastic mitigation options that provide nothing more than a "band aid" effect, and do not significantly reduce what is already a relatively insignificant impact. In this regard it is recommended that removal of the water, and prevention of further excess accumulation of water in the pit, be implemented as a long term solution, and that the most viable option or options be pursued immediately and with diligence. This approach will likely take some time to implement, perhaps two to three years. However, it should be remembered that as the extent of the water is reduced in the bottom of the pit, the likelihood of contact by wildlife of concern with the water will continue to be reduced, particularly by avian wildlife such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Therefore, any long term action that in the short term reduces the amount of water is of benefit.