My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-08-19_PERMIT FILE - C1980007 (12)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2014-08-19_PERMIT FILE - C1980007 (12)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2016 9:28:24 AM
Creation date
10/28/2016 9:24:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/19/2014
Doc Name
Refuse Pile Expansion East
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 82 Refuse Pile Expansion East
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
frog in this wetland was rather anomalous and not necessarily indicative of an onsite population. The <br />habitat conditions in and around the small unvegetated pool did not appear sufficient to support a <br />population of northern leopard frog. Of the other two onsite wetlands, Wetland C is not suitable for <br />northern leopard frogs, since there are no shallowly -inundated areas within the wetland. Wetland A <br />on the other hand is slightly larger in size at 0.2 acres and does contain areas of shallow inundation <br />along with a diverse wetland plant community. If a population of northern leopard frog does exist <br />onsite, it would most likely be present in Wetland A. See Appendix I for more detailed descriptions <br />of the three wetlands delineated onsite. <br />The onsite population of northern leopard frog, if present, will not be impacted by the RPEE project <br />because no wetland impacts are planned. Furthermore, the existing habitat connectivity between the <br />three delineated onsite wetlands will not be adversely affected by the project. <br />Should a population of northern pocket gopher exist onsite, there is some likelihood that it will be <br />incidentally impacted by permitted project activities. However, because there is little to no regulatory <br />precedence for State consultation for projects that may incidentally take a Special Concern species, <br />onsite quantitative surveys and alternatives/avoidance analysis are not proposed at this time. <br />All remaining state and federally -listed wildlife species were determined to be "Unlikely", "Very <br />Unlikely", or having "No Likelihood" to occur onsite due to any combination of species rarity and <br />high endemism along with restrictions in habitat, geography, location, or elevation. Should any state <br />or federally -listed species of wildlife be later identified onsite, the USFWS and/or CPW will be <br />consulted before the population and/or individuals are impacted. <br />The CNHP Element Occurrences by QUAD documents several listed species of wildlife as occurring <br />in relatively close proximity to the project site (within the Somerset Quad or immediately <br />surrounding Quads). The database indicates element occurrences of Colorado River cutthroat trout <br />(Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), wolverine (Gulo Gulo luscus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), <br />black -footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), and boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas). The exact meaning <br />of the presence of an element occurrence is unclear; i.e. the metadata does not indicate the date of <br />observation. The element occurrence could be a recent record or an old record. <br />The Colorado cutthroat trout may in fact be present in the North Fork Gunnison River, which is <br />located downstream to the north of the project site. Best Management Practices will assure that the <br />33 <br />PAMpls\06 CO\26\06261003 MCC Refuse Pile Site Review & Permit\WorkFiles\Permit Application\2014 Revision\Exhibit 82 2014-05- <br />29.docx <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.