The state health department plans to make a compliance check on a complaint about the adequacy of erosion control for the ongoing Boulder Canyon construction project after environmental advocates reported what appeared to be a high level of sediment downstream.
Boulder Waterkeeper filed a complaint Sunday with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment after one of its members, fly-fishing guide Wallace Westfeldt, made observations and took photographs showing what they termed “unusually high sediment” downstream from the Colo. 119 improvement project in the area of Eben Fine Park and other locations.
The Colorado Department of Transportation on Friday said in a statement that both that agency and contractor Zak Dirt have been in compliance with the monitoring of stormwater measures and are maintaining vigilance in keeping up with the required installation and maintenance erosion mitigation measures “prior to, during and after any natural event.”
The water quality complaint was leveled against the lead contractor, Longmont-based Zak Dirt, which holds the permit for the $31 million project that includes regular closures of the canyon due to blasting, and will not be completed until summer 2020.
In addition to the apparent sediment issues photographed on Sept. 7, the complaint stated, “On 9/8/2019 a drive-through of the construction area showed poor erosion control measures being instituted by the Contractor with large amounts of open exposed sediment near Boulder Creek.”
The complaint states that “It is apparent that erosion control measures are not adequate as per the CDPHE General Stormwater Permit requirements.”
Nathan Moore, section manager for the Clean Water Compliance and Enforcement Section of the state health department responded to the Boulder Waterkeeper Complaint late Thursday, in an email which stated, “We will inspect this site as soon as we can, but have not yet. We will be able to inspect the site regardless of the road closure and will do a full compliance inspection, but I do appreciate the heads up on road closures.
“Keep in mind we prefer to do these inspections with less then 24 hour notice to the permittee, this helps us make a full compliance assessment and drive sustainable compliance.”
Separately, MarryAnn Nason, a spokesperson for CDPHE, said “We do over 400 construction inspections in a year, and we inspect any complaint that identifies potential violations and water quality concerns.”
‘Checking every day’
Zak Dirt President Pete Sewczak on Friday cast doubt on the possibility that the sediment could be tied to the CDOT Boulder Canyon project.
“We did our due diligence, and we are actually not currently working in any of the river systems right now,” he said. “So when we heard about the complaint, we made sure there was nothing we are doing incorrectly. We are not doing anything to contribute any sediment at this time. All our best management practices are in place. We are checking every day.”
He noted there are a number of additional construction projects in the foothills going concurrently to the work being done by Zak Dirt, and suggested it might be other projects that “may or may not be contributing to what they saw.”
Any Boulder Canyon project work Zak Dirt does do in the streambed as part of its ongoing project will be “minimal,” according to Sewczak, and will be performed in low-water situations.
“CDOT has taken extra measures to make sure we are in compliance, including agreeing to pay for additional Erosion Control Management each week day. This additional ECM includes daily inspections and daily erosion control device maintenance if necessary,” CDOT spokesman Jared Fiel said, in a statement.
“In addition to the aforementioned, the project team has been in continuous contact with CDOT’s Environmental representatives as well as the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that the construction associated with this critical, high profile project is being completed in the safest and most efficient manner.”
He also said that Westfeldt’s photos, included with the complaint “show an area that we don’t believe has any impact from our project. Other work in the canyon may be contributing to this situation.”
‘No noncompliance’
Boulder Waterkeeper’s attention to the health of Boulder Creek manifested on other fronts in recent days. Art Hirsch, a member of the advocacy group who has been sounding alarms about elevated levels E.coli in downstream portions of the creek which he blames on discharges from the University of Colorado Boulder campus, took his concerns Thursday to the regularly scheduled meeting of the CU Board of Regents at the Anschutz Medical Campus.
Hirsch said he used the few minutes allotted through the public comments portion of the meeting, and drew a response from CU Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano.
“He was ready,” Hirsch said. “He had some notes that he pulled out, and he had the basic talking points from CU, that basically ‘We’re in compliance through our permit and we have been very open with Boulder Waterkeeper.’ Playing out of the same old hymn out of the same old hymnbook, again.”
Hirsch, on behalf of Boulder Waterkeeper, filed a complaint with the state Aug. 8, pinpointing what he termed to be five “illicit discharge sites” from the CU Boulder Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System into Boulder Creek, producing E.coli concentrations for which he said three were “far above” the state water quality standards set for the creek of 126 colony forming units per 100 millileters.
The state responded in late August, and in a statement said, “The state received the letter from the Boulder Waterkeeper and has looked into whether there were any violations of CU’s MS4 permit. We concluded that the fact that there was water coming from the stormwater system did not show that there were any illicit discharges.
“The state has confirmed with the university their implementation process to control potential illicit discharges to the creek, and have identified no noncompliance with their permit.”
Additionally, the state health department said “We are currently in the process of renewing the general permit for CU Boulder that covers the university’s stormwater collection system, and the new permit will include additional required practices to help reduce pathogens in discharges.”
Boulder Waterkeeper is protesting the state response to its complaint concerning CU Boulder to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and in a letter to the EPA dated Sept. 5, has asked the agency to “review and evaluate” the state response.
Hirsch’s bottom line, he said, is “I just want them to do what the city of Boulder is doing, developing an implementation plan, doing the monitoring, and trying to stop their discharges. That’s all I want them to do.”
Source link