REV13243 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Letter to JoseUh de Raismes 7 Mav 3, 1995 Division does not issue wetlands permits or make wetlands determinations, however, the Division will advise the operator to seek a determination from the Army Corps of Engineers on the necessity of a Department of the Army permit for the Jenkins Site, and will advise the Army Corps of the operator's aativities. It appears that the Jenkins Site may be a candidate for the extended Grandfather Provision that is part of the September 24, 1993 amendments to the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program. 9. Item number 7 of your list of concerns raises issuEes related to Spiranthes diluvialis and the Preble's meadow jumping [souse that may be present at the site. The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service has defined sites that are either clearly not appropriate Spiranthes habitat or have very low potential to be Spiranthes habitat. A survey for Spiranthes is not required for such sites. Sites that do not require a survey include highly disturbed or mod ifi.ed sites such as active construction sites where all vegetation has teen stripped. Since the Jenkins Site would fit this definition, Spiranthes protection would not be a consideration in reclamation of the pit. The Preble's mouse has not been listed as a threatened or endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. Alsc, prelimihary investigations indicate that the mouse prefers a moist habitat with dense vegetation, such as high quality grass habitat bordering drainagways with trees and shrubs present. The areas that are the focus of the current reclamation project do not fit the profile for Preble's mouse habitat, because most of the earthwork is taking place well above the stream, and because none or very little of the grasslands in the permit area could be considered "h.igh quality". The end result of site reclamation can be anticipated to provide an enhancement of Preble's mouse habitat at the site. l0, Item number 8 of your list of concerns states that 3:1 reclaimed slopes are contrary to the Application. In fact, reclaimed slopes of up to 3:1 are approved in the terms of the Jenkins Site permit as of the March 20, 1986 approval date of the most recent permit amendment. You further state that these actions (presumably the phrase refers to the creation of 3:1 reclaimed slopes) "are contrary to 2 C.C.R. 407-1, § 3.1.10(37)". It is assumed that you meant to refer to Rule 3.1.10(3), which states: If the Operator's choice of reclamation is for range, the land shall be restored to slopes commensurate with the ,proposed land use and shall not be too steep to be traversed by livestock. Please be assured that creation of 3:1 reclaimed slopes is not contrary to Rule 3.1.10(3). 3:1 slopes are commensurate with a rangeland end-use, and 3:1 slopes are not too steep to be traversed by livestock. You also raise the issue of compaction, and point out that the