HomeMy WebLinkAbout990396.tiff (a)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. RMC
Premiere Building
825 Delaware Ave.. Suite 500
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-5282
Metro (303) 665-6283
FAX (303) 665-6959
E-mail rmclong@rmii.com
January 4, 1999
Eric Jerman, Current Planner
Weld County Department of Planning EXHIBIT
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631 --�—�
RE: Andesite Rock Company Special Review Permit#USR-1206
Dear Eric:
This letter is formatted to respond to your comments in the order they appear in your staff
recommendation.
I. The Special Review activity shall not occur until all permits required by the Army Corps of
Engineers have been obtained.
Large portions of this site can be mined without disturbing wetlands. We met with Rex Fletcher
from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on-site on December 16, 1998. It is our
understanding that Andesite Rock Company (Andesite)may or may not need to obtain a permit
for this site. Per the 1993 "Tulloch Rule" the Corps does not regulate activities that solely
involve excavation in jurisdictional waters and wetlands. If Andesite excavates wetland areas
using"scooping" techniques(i.e. uses a backhoe and places the material in an upland location),
they are not required to obtain a 404 permit. However, if they use scrapers or dozers that push
the material and disturb waters of the U.S., they will obtain any necessary permits prior to
disturbance.
2. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed
on the Special Review Plat prior to recording the Plat.
We will list the required Development Standards on the plat prior to recording it.
3. The plat shall be amended to delineate:
a. 80 feet of right-of-way across the proposed mining property for the extension of Weld County
Road 7.
b. 10 additional fret of right-of-way for Weld County Road 24.5
c. 10 additional feet of right-of-way for Weld County Road 7
d. All setbacks based on future rights-of-way
e. The extension of Weld County Road 7.5 shall be realigned to match Weld County Road 7.5
south of State Highway 119.
The applicant, Andesite Rock Company does not own this property. The landowner
(Rademacher Family Partnership, LLLP) is in the process of applying for a PUD (S-474) for this
property. All issues regarding location and future width of right-of-way will be addressed
through the PUD process. Please note: if the extension of WCR 7.5 were realigned to match the
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • PLANNING
990396
Inc
Mr. Eric Jerman
December 22, 1998
Page 2
existing road, it would run through Mrs. Rademacher's home, a wetlands area and two ponds.
Thus, the Rademachers are working with the Colorado Department of Transportation and Weld
County Public Works Department on an acceptable alignment of Weld County Road 7.5. Again,
this issue will be worked out through the PUD process.
We will amend the Extraction Plan Map to reflect the appropriate setback from Weld County
Road 24.5.
4. The applicant shall submit a Dust Abatement Plan to the Weld County Health Department for
review and approval.
Andesite will submit a Dust Abatement Plan to the Weld County Health Department for review
and approval before operations commence.
5. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the existing
NPDES permit has been amended from the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)for any proposed discharge into state
waterways.
The applicant has a NPDES permit from CDPHE for the existing gravel operation. As long as
the applicant discharges in the locations set forth in the permit, it is our understanding they are in
compliance with the existing permit. The applicant will obtain a new NPDES permit from
CDPHE prior to discharging at a new location (i.e. Phase 2 of the Extraction Plan). We will
forward a copy of the permit to the Department of Planning Services upon request.
6. The applicant shall apply and have approved a Flood Hazard Development Permit for any
structures located within the floodplain and for any development that will increase or decrease
the base elevation in the floodplain as delineated on FEMA Panel Map#080266 0850C, dated
September 28, 1982.
We are in the process of applying for a Flood Hazard Development Permit.
7. The applicant shall submit proof to the Weld County Department of Planning Services that the
proposed operation is covered by an APEN.
The decision date for the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) 112 permit is January 26,
1999. Once the applicant has received the DMG permit,we will update the APEN if necessary.
We will forward a copy of the permit to the Department of Planning Services upon receipt.
99639
•
•
Inc
Mr. Eric Jerman
December 22, 1998
Page 3
8. The applicant shall enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement with Weld County Public Works
Department for this location.
Andesite will enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement with the Weld County Public Works
Department which defines maintenance responsibility and designated haul roads.
I have also enclosed a copy of the wetland delineation report and a letter indicating there are no
endangered species on this property from Russ Pickering of Aspen Environmental Services. The
letter responds to the issues raised by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Please call me if you have
any additional questions or comments.
Since ely,
I
ROKY MOUNT CON !TANTS, INC.
`1 v''
Br Danna Brand
Natural Resources Planner
H13671_001\WCRESPNS.WPD
99?39&
^tom OCT ➢eaialoPmant Serer GrP 3034300917 p. O2
• •
l f .
r .., DEV LOPMENT SERVICES GelOUP INC„
January 4, 1999 •
•
' j Mr.Eric German
Weld County Planning Department
Steven G. Smith,PE
(ICI Development Services Group,Inc.
j 111&1 Huron Drive,Suite 13 •
Denver,,CO 80234 •
Dear Mr. German:
I have reviewed the plans entitled Mining Plan and Itceltuuadon Plan (for Andcsite Rock.Company,
Amenthpent To MIRB112 Permit #M-79-083R), both prepared by Rocky Mountain Consultants
and dated 10/98 and offer the following.
• The proposed mining operation,once completed,will not increase the Base flood Elevations (i.e.
'100-year flood elevations) of Idaho Creek
• There arc no proposed insurable structures to be constructed with the mining operation within
the 100-year floodplain of Idaho Creek.
• 'There axe temporary dirt stockpiles proposed with the Mining Plan within the Idaho Creek
Ploodplain. It is my opinion that these temporary stockpiles will not significantly increase the
• Base Mood Elevations of Idaho Creek (i.e. +0.01 foot). However, it would be advantageous to
• place these stockpiles with a minimal face area perpendicular to the stream flow (i.e. place them
i in a long berm parallel to the stream flow).
Thterefore, based upon the fore mentioned, I do not believe a Conditional I etter of Map Revision
• should be required for the proposed mining operation. Should you have questions regarding this
letter or desire further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
•
Sincerely, \\ rru•�iirnn��s
pp0 REC qi�4
U j�≥Alt" a �i5�d� •
• 29739 r
St von G. Smith,Pk; _ 4-= EXHIBIT
'4.cc:Mr.Barbara Brunk,RMC �ref ON A i ri•—t:
t
(303) 260-9200 • 11 184 Huron St. Suite 12 • Denver. CO 80234
01/04/99 16:22 TX/RX N0.3946 P.002 .
ya r•r04-99 11 :30A Aspen Environmental 970 203 1827 V . 01
S
P.O. Box 78711
A Loveland, CO 837
7 15 o p N Ph Loveland,
(970) 203.1788
.v rmnrrri_. .�eru CPs Fax (970) 203-1827
January 4, 1998 4. EXHIBIT
Danna Brand (9,0
Rocky Mountain Consultants
825 Delaware, Suite 500
Longmont,CO 80501
RE: Andesite/Rademacher—T&E Discussion with Colorado DOW
Dear Danna,
[ spoke this morning with Larry Rogstad, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of
Wildlife, regarding the proposed Andesite/Rademacher gravel pit project . 1 referred him to his
letter to the Weld County Department of Planning Services of December 12, 1998.
As you know, his letter made several recommendations regarding the mitigation of wildlife
impacts on this site. He specifically addressed the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
hudsonius preblei), the Black-tailed Prairie Dog(Cynomys ludovicianus), and the Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia).
Mr. Rogstad indicated that the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service now considers grassy wet meadows
to be suitable Preble's Mouse habitat even in the absence of a brushy vegetation layer (e.g.,
willows). This information, combined with the proximity of the site to known Preble's sitings
(i.e., north half of Section 3), prompted him to recommend a survey for Preble's be conducted.
He agreed with me, however, that if no direct disturbance of the wet meadow areas in the
southern portion of the project site were to occur, then a survey need not be conducted.
His concern about the Black-tailed Prairie Dogs was largely political. He agreed with my
position that there was no legal basis through which the taking of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog
was prevented. His position was simply that methods needed to be employed that were approved
by the Division of Wildlife for either removing or euthanizing the colonies prior to surface
disturbance. He specifically did not want to bulldoze the colonies due to the propensity of prairie
dogs to move to neighboring areas where they might be unwelcome.
He felt that the mitigation of any potential problems associated with Burrowing Owl habitat
destruction was easily handled. He suggested, as he had in his letter, that surface disturbance be
completed prior to the beginning of the nesting season for the owl (April 1). Assuming initial
earthwork was completed by this time, no surveys would be required by the Division of Wildlife.
I also discussed with him the recent sightings of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). We
agreed that there were no nests or apparent hunting roosts on site. He indicated that the eagles
were winter residents along the South Platte drainage, that they tended to not be adversely
affected by gravel mining operations, and that he did not feel they needed any special
consideration in conjunction with this project.
• Direct Push Probe Sampling • Environmental/G otechnical Drilling • Monitoring:Ftmedlal Well insvallation
• Environmental Consulting Services
-9q6396,
n-04--99 11 :31A Aspen Environmental 970 2031827 P . 02V�
•
•
Aspen Em'imnmental Services
Mr. Rogstad was pretty solid on his recommendations. I suggest efforts be made by Andesite to
follow them including avoiding the wet meadow habitat near Idaho Creek in the southern portion
of the site, euthanizing the prairie dogs using a Division of Wildlife approved toxicant applied
using an approved method, and the completion of initial earthwork prior to April 1 in areas with
prairie dog burrows.
He was not concerned about the northern portion of the site. I would suggest that we follow his
recommendations regarding prairie dogs and burrowing owls over the whole site,just to be on the
safe side. It would not take much more effort and would go a long way toward heading off
potential problems for Andesite.
Please call with questions.
Sincerely,
F. Russell Pickering, M.S.
President
Cow Amber Tnvsky.Real West Natural Resource Consulting
gg^
•-:.-tect04-99 02 : 56.P Aspen Environmental 970 203 1827 P.O1
G P.O. box 7871
A s • e n Loveland.CO 60`37
Phone 970) 203-1788
E,w rormentai tirvices Fax(970) 203-1827
January 4, 1999
Danna Brand
Rocky Mountain Consultants
825 Delaware, Suite 500
Longmont, CO 80501
RE: Andesite/Rademacher—Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys
Dear Danna,
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and RMC on the Andesite/Rademacher Project.
Work has been completed for the threatened and endangered species surveys of the property
located in the South half of Section 3, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 68th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado. This letter serves as the report which details the results of the surveys.
Pedestrian surveys of the site were conducted during August and September 1998 for the specific
purposes of identifying suitable habitat for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
hudsonius preblei)and Ute Lady's Tresses(.Spiranrhes diluvialis).
Suitable habitat for Z. hudsonius prebletis present on this site as defined by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS Survey Guidelines for this species identifies habitats
occupied by Z. hudsonius preblei as having "low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or
both in open wet meadows and riparian corridors or where tall shrubs and low trees provide
adequate cover. It prefers lowlands with medium to high moisture." Relatively undisturbed wet
meadows are present on the southern portion of the study site. Larry Rogstad, District Wildlife
Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, has recommended a trapping survey of this area if it is
to be disturbed by mining activities. If it is to be left undisturbed, no surveys are necessary.
Suitable habitat for S. diluvialis includes moist to wet areas near the borders of western lakes,
streams, and wetlands. S. diluvialis surveys are generally conducted during August and
September when the plant is in flower due to the difficulties in identifying S. diluvialis at other
times. Some areas of suitable habitat are present on the Andesite/Rademacher site. These areas
are limited to the edges of wetlands and ponded areas. No S. diluvialis were observed during
surveys conducted in both August and September 1998. No further action is recommended
regarding this species prior to the commencement of mining activities.
During these surveys and surveys conducted in conjunction with a wetland delineation for this
property, several upland areas were noted to be colonized by Black-tailed Prairie Dogs (Cynomys
ludovicianus). While not currently under any legislative protection, a petition to list
C. ludovicianus as threatened or endangered has been filed with the U.S, Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Colorado Division of Wildlife lists the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as a game species
with no restrictions on harvest. However, given the politically charged atmosphere surrounding
this species, they have recommended that C. ludovicianus found on the Andesite/Radentacher
property be trapped and removed or euthanized using an approved toxicant prior to initial
• Direct Push Froe Somptng • Ervircnmen;al/Geotechnical Drilling • Mcnitoring/Rernedial Well Installation
• Environmental Consulting Services
9913&
/ oa_99 02 : 57P Asp :.Environmental 970203 1827 P.02 Aspen Environmenici Services
earthwork. The simplest and most cost effective method of dealing with this issue is to
recommend that the client hire a contractor to euthanize the prairie dogs in cooperation with the
Division of Wildlife. If Andesite wishes to trap and remove the prairie dogs, they could likely
also do this with the cooperation of the Division of Wildlife.
Perhaps the largest obstacle posed by the presence of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog colonies is the
known use of such colonies as nesting sites for the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). This
species has recently been added to the Colorado Threatened Species List. The Colorado Division
of Wildlife recommends that no new earthwork be conducted within 180 yards of a known nest
during the nesting period of the owl (April 1 through August 31). Discussions with Larry
Rogstad, Colorado Division of Wildlife, have indicated that the best way to mitigate against
disturbance of the nests is to do all initial earthwork prior to April 1 in areas where prairie dog
burrows are present. If this is not possible, the diem has two options. First,conduct a survey for
Burrowing Owls, and mark and avoid disturbance of nests and fledging areas (nondisturbance
zone of 180 radius from nest)during the nesting period. Second, they could simply concentrate
mining activities elsewhere and avoid areas with prairie dog burrows altogether until after
September 1.
Recent sightings of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on the project site are of little
concern with regard to proposed mining activities. Bald Eagles winter along the South Platte
River drainage and are relatively common this time of year. No nests are present on site nor are
there any obvious hunting roosts. The eagles will likely migrate north in the spring to conduct
nesting activities, and, as such, no further action is required to mitigate impact to Bald Eagles on
this site.
Please call with questions regarding any portion of these surveys or any aspect of our service to
Rocky Mountain Consultants.
Sincerely 9
�4 -
F. Russell Pickering, M.S.
President
Copy: Amber traysky,Real West Natural Resource Consulting
RADEMACHER PROPERTY
WETLAND DELINEATION .
Prepared for:
Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc.
Longmont, CO
Prepared by:
Aspen Environmental Services
F. Russell Pickering, MS
P.O. Box 7871
Loveland, CO 80537
December 1998
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to identify and delineate potential jurisdictional wetlands
associated with a proposed gravel mine expansion by the Andesite Rock Company on the
Rademacher Property located in the South half of Section 3, Township 2 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado (Figure 1.1) to facilitate compliance with
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act established a permitting
system to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S.,
including deepwater habitats, special aquatic sites, and wetlands. Wetland delineations
are often necessary to determine if an area meets the criteria for a waters of the U.S.
and/or a jurisdictional wetland and is therefore subject to permitting requirements.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has the authority to make decisions regarding
the jurisdictional status of a wetland. Therefore, the COE should be contacted prior to
disturbance of any area investigated during this delineation. Areas determined to be
waters of the U.S. and which met the three wetland criteria outlined in the 1987 COE
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) during the
August/September 1998 field investigations of the subject property are hereafter referred
to as potential jurisdictional wetlands.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
1
` 2' 2 fl r f'-' Foster 1 y '
i \...
I as t___„2 \
isefourssittt:ir;Xl..; ;-:;:"."-- Rctiervvi-.1- ___ 1/4..."------ \ -....-4441."--------------------1., 1.
—rte
i � �'
'• \I -" - "•4010 ( •-�•'•:"."' -'; ."".....,00 N.:::, trr--.....i.----...---.:.
T3�1 E �--"r--
SE t_ F '�cii• ` ' .-` ' _) •
WCR z?�1l4
.
I ,F -i.!..:-, 4 \
•
♦♦ V E GM
I V311 ' � -
�, t t V I +v Ft �- Z� j
-�--' 1 ":"Cam , ELCANINO H €RIr
.:.
ei
jil '
�I 1 w, r ;
.• rr !? `\
Oft: �5,-..,".' .� _--y _
R68W - : . , -" — •TN rn tau
TNT.
I® o teas ID04 laeo .emr¢r
�,111� Pm.& TOPOF O}DPl Wildllowpl Pm:acmm(sue+tor.,and
• ii) LOCATION OF RMC
SURVEYED AREA FIGURE
1.1
,<M%. 7(/7 G:
Wetland Delineation, Andesite/Rademacher Property
2.0 METHODS
Potential jurisdictional wetlands were delineated utilizing the three parameter approach
for a routine on site determination as defined by the C0E (Environmental Laboratory
1987). The C0E manual defines wetlands as:
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.
In order for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland, it must have evidence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Under normal
circumstances, the absence of any one of the three parameters results in a non-wetland
determination. If disturbed conditions are present, then consideration must be given to
what conditions would have been present had the disturbance not occurred.
A routine delineation with an on site inspection was conducted during several site visits
in August and September of 1998 by F. Russell Pickering of Aspen Environmental
Services Inc. (Aspen). A wetland determination was made at each major plant
community represented on the subject property and at strategically located positions
adjacent to potential wetland areas to aid in boundary delineations.
Plant communities and the dominant plant species within each community were
identified to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Plant species were either
identified on site or voucher specimens were identified by Dr. Robert Dom of Mountain
West Environmental Services, Cheyenne, Wyoming. An ocular estimate of percent cover
was used to determine dominant plants at each sample site. The National List of Plant
Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988) was used to determine the indicator status of
dominant plants within each community. Plant species were classified as obligate
wetland (0BL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland
(FACU), or upland (UPL) species.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
3
9723`-w
✓etland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher PrL
Soil profiles were examined for hydric soil characteristics (e.g., mottling, gleying,
saturation) in each plant community to determine if hydric soil indicators were present.
Soil color was determined using Munsell Soil Color Charts. Additional soils information
was obtained from the soil survey for the area including the subject property.
Geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics of the site were also investigated to determine
if wetland hydrology was present. Observations of surface drainage patterns and depth to
groundwater in each plant community were the principle components of this portion of
the field investigation.
•
•
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
4
%o.39 '
Wetland Delineation, Andesite/Rademacher Pr.,Nerty
3.0 RESULTS
Areas of potential jurisdictional wetlands are present on the project site (Figure A.1,
Appendix A). The combined total area of wetlands on the site is approximately
9.49 acres. The first area includes the relatively undisturbed portion of Idaho Creek and a
tributary drainage in the southern portion of the property (Wetland Site 1, Figure A.1).
The area of Wetland Site 1 totals 6.17 acres. The second wetland area exists as a narrow
strip along the realigned section of Idaho Creek in the north central portion of the
property (Wetland Site 2, Figure A.1). Wetland Site 2 comprises 0.6 acres. Directly to
the east of Wetland Site 2 is an area of wetland located in a small swale that serves as the
overflow for a ponded area created by flood events (Wetland Site 3, Figure A.1).
Wetland Site 3 covers approximately 0.88 acres. The last wetland area on the portion of
the Rademacher Property included in this survey is located in the northeastern corner of
the site (Wetland Site 4, Figure A.1) and covers approximately 1.84 acres.
3.1 WETLAND SITE 1
Two separate areas within Wetland Site 1 were sampled with regard to making wetland
determinations. Each of these areas exhibited two distinct vegetative communities.
Sample plots were identified as Plots 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B as shown in Figure A.1. The
first area comprises a tributary drainage to Idaho Creek and includes Plots lA and 1B.
The second area sampled was located in a swale adjacent to Idaho Creek and includes
Plots 2A and 2B. Idaho Creek was running water at the time of the field investigation.
The creek is shallow and exhibits a common cattail (Typha latifolia) dominated
community in the area of Plots 2A and 2B and on the east side of the primary haul road
(Figure A.1).
Plot IA was determined to be a non-wetland based on the dominant vegetative
community, soil conditions, and hydrologic conditions present at the time of the field
investigation. Plant species dominating this area include rough bentgrass (Agrostis
scabra), hedge bindweed (Calystegia septum), western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii),
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
99036
Wetland Delineation, Andesite/Rademacher Property
and creeping thistle (Cirsiurn arvense). Soils are a sandy loam (7.5YR 4/3) mixed with
gravel. No water was present in the sample boring nor was saturation apparent.
Plot 1B was characterized as a wetland area. This determination was made based on a
hydrophytic vegetative community dominated by Lady's thumb (Polygonum persicaria),
broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), and creeping spikerush (Eleocharis palustris). Soils in
this plant community are a gleyed (N 2.5/) clay loam exhibiting a hydrogen sulfide odor
and oxidized root channels. This area was saturated to the surface at the time of the field
investigation indicating that wetland hydrology was present at Wetland Site 1 at Plot 1B.
Plot 2A was determined to be located within a wetland. The vegetative community in
this plot was dominated by three-square bulrush (Scirpus pungens), bog yellow-cress
(Rorippa palustris), northern arrow-head (Sagittaria cuneata), and prairie cordgrass
(Spartina pectinata). Soils at Plot 2A are dark, organic clay foams that are gleyed (N 3/)
with oxidized root channels. Groundwater was encountered at eight inches below ground
surface at the time of the site characterization confirming that wetland hydrology was
present at this sample plot.
Plot 2B was characterized by a wheatgrass community of the genus Elymus with some
rough bentgrass (A. scabra) represented. Each of these plants are of the facultative
upland wetland indicator status. This area was atypical in that it appears to have recently
been sprayed for broadleaf weed control. However, there were no indicators of wetland
hydrology or hydric soils observed. Therefore, Plot 2B was determined to be a
non-wetland.
3.2 WETLAND SITE 2
Wetland Site 2 is a potential jurisdictional wetland located principally along the eastern
edge of the relocated northern portion of Idaho Creek (Figure A.1). The wetland area
consists of a narrow (approximately five to ten feet wide) band that has been established
since the creek was rerouted to accommodate gravel mining operations conducted under a
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
6
990396-'
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
previous permit. The area sampled in this section is labeled Plot 3A in Figure A.1. The
vegetative community here was dominated by the same species found at Plot 2A to the
south along an undisturbed portion of Idaho Creek (S. pungens, R. palustris, S. cuneata,
and S. pectinata). This sample plot was determined to be in a wetland based on its
similarity to Plot 2A, the presence of a hydrophytic vegetative community and observed
existing hydrologic characteristics.
3.3 WETLAND SITE 3
Wetland Site 3 (Figure A.1) is a swale that serves to drain a ponded area resulting from
flood events. It did not appear that the swale was connected Idaho Creek via a surface
channel in recent time. It is possible that irrigation overflow feeds water into this area,
and it is likely that groundwater plays a limited role in providing wetland hydrologic
conditions.
Plot 3B, shown in Figure A.1, was sampled within Wetland Site 3. This sample plot was
dominated by a hydrophytic vegetative community including three-square bulrush
(S. pungens) and foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum). Soils were damp at six inches below
ground surface and consisted of loamy sands that appeared gleyed (3N/ with 2.5N/
streaking). This site was determined to be located in a marginal wetland which was
directly connected to and included the area surrounding the pond to the south (inundated
and dominated by a common cattail, T. latifolia, community).
A sample plot (Plot 3C, Figure A.1) was located between Wetland Site 2 and Wetland
Site 3 to aid in making wetland determinations. This plot was dominated by hedge
bindweed (C. sepium), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and showy milkweed
(Asclepius speciosa). These species do not qualify for hydrophytic vegetation, nor were
hydrologic conditions (no water in pit and no secondary indicators) or hydric soil
indicators (7.5YR 3/2 with no secondary indicators); therefore, this area was determined
not to be located within a wetland.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
i
9939‘.,i
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
3.4 WETLAND SITE 4
Wetland Site 4 was characterized by sampling at Plots 4A and 4B (Figure A.1). Plot 4A
was located within the potential wetland, and Plot 4B was in an apparent upland area to
the west of Plot 4A.
Plot 4A was dominated by a hydrophytic vegetation community including three-square
bulrush (S. pungens) and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Also present is field pennycress
(Thlaspi arvense) which is typically found in disturbed areas and may be associated with
the agricultural fields immediately to the east and south of this site. Soils at this sample
plot were clay loams with a sulfidic odor. Soil colors were gleyed (3N/), and soils were
saturated to the surface indicating the presence of wetland hydrology. Plot 4A was
determined to be located within a wetland.
Plot 4B was determined to be in an upland area due to the absence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The vegetative community was similar
to that of Plot 3C being dominated by hedge bindweed (C. sepium), common mullein
(V. thapsus), and showy milkweed (A. speciosa). Mineral soils were present, and there
were no indicators of wetland hydrology.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
8
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
4.0 WETLAND PROTECTION AND CREATION
Wetlands on the portions of the Rademacher Property included in this survey that are
naturally occurring should be avoided during mining activities where possible. These
areas include Wetland Site I and Wetland Site 4. Wetland Site 1 is the largest and best
established wetland on the property, while Wetland Site 4 is unique among the wetlands
present on site. Wetland Site 2 is in the process of being developed after portions of
Idaho Creek were realigned and would arguably redevelop if this section of wetland were
to be impacted by mining activities. The swale portion of Wetland Site 3 is marginal
because of an apparent lack of a steady water source; however, the wetland area
surrounding the ponded section of Wetland Site 3 should be protected where possible.
The Andesite Rock Company has indicated a desire to create wetlands on a portion of the
area that has been proposed to be mined. A key to the formation of wetlands is the
presence of wetland hydrology for at least 12.5% of the growing season. The growing
season can be defined as that portion of the year where the temperature exceeds and
remains above biological zero (41° F) at 19.7" below ground surface. In this area,
wetland hydrology would have to be present for approximately 12 days of the growing
season for upland plant communities to be excluded.
•
Given that the operation of a gravel mine is to remove overburden and gravel and then to
backfill the area with a suitable material, it is not difficult for the operator to choose a
depth of fill that will assure the existence of wetland hydrology. Soils should be
saturated to a minimum depth of 12" below ground surface. It is often advisable to place
a semi permeable barrier (e.g., shale) across the down gradient portion of the area where
the wetland is to be created to aid in establishing wetland hydrology.
The next step would be to choose fill material that is suitable for the formation of hvdric
soil conditions. Again, the operator has control over what fill material is utilized and thus
has control over the creation of soils that are conducive to the colonization of an area by
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
9
99' 3962
Wetland Delineation, Andesite/Rademacher Property
hydrophytic plant communities. At least 18" of organic soil should be placed as the
uppermost backfill layer to aid in the development of hydric soil conditions.
Each of the current wetland areas located on the Rademacher Property would be suitable
for the creation of post mining activity wetlands. Given the relatively constant water
flow of Idaho Creek, the areas in the existing and realigned portions of the drainage
would perhaps be most suitable for wetland creation. However, any of the mined areas
would also be suitable given that proper fill materials and depth of fill were utilized.
Vegetative communities similar to those currently encountered on the site should be
introduced if created wetlands were not placed where natural revegetation would occur
quickly.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
10
X396
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
5.0 SUMMARY
Potential jurisdictional wetlands have been identified and delineated for the Andesite
Rock Company proposed gravel mining extension area on the Rademacher Property.
Four separate potential jurisdictional wetland areas comprising a total of approximately
9.39 acres are shown in Figure A.1. Wetland Site 1 and Wetland Site 4 are apparently
naturally occurring; Wetland Site 2 is a developing wetland along the east side of a
realigned portion of Idaho Creek, and Wetland Site 3 is marginal due to questionable
wetland hydrology.
The COE has the authority to make-the final decision regarding the jurisdictional status of
a wetland; therefore, the determination of wetlands investigated during this survey may
require on site investigation by COE personnel, in conjunction with the information
provided in this report. The COE should be contacted prior to the disturbance of wetland
areas identified during this delineation effort.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
11
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. + append.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Central
Plains (Region 5). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Biological Report 88(26.5). 76 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Survey of
Boulder County Area, Colorado. 86 pp. +maps.
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
12
9%39&
,✓etland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
APPENDIX A: POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS MAP
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
13
NY'ld GNO I1 ICINO7 ON I1S IXa .,;0,
r�a�^�, everewtmdxri aaevsuuhuel:aua�r eanuttwsl SCINY"11M "1MNOI1714SIVIr "IYI1N1Od ''G`
�'] wswm�NowFxioi oosaure`anvae+mvvasae ' 9NIMOHS 1.1?J3dO2Jd 1'� f9flS '� ` g
l•.V •ONIS1Ntl11f1SNO9NIV1Nf10WANOOFi o�� I'Y 3T1l91S
AG 31V0 wslA""' ON
SNOiSIAJ I 1.NYdNOO )IOO21 311S3CNY m
Bx N)
I:4
yy O
,1A; a
\
�� INTERSTATE 25
Bk,' sev z e r
1Q0 0 gym, Vie. ₹a, a°w0 j
F / •
OOP, I Y icla
,
t.-,- N
7 .,,'
SS
•
f
I / -e�2 I'1 I� 'l rl �N
n�. e/ e F 0 a :51
v I
' i) .\ , 7-....„.._,, ,,i..\ .ii 1 ,ii,,2, 3
�� h� II\ lip
" ;,:,,,,,dt 0 a- 0 ,1
I ;10." $- / Iy \\ -III.
01 ii
b � � � r tl:g I u
-..;-°5..
o$ 1 u.11 / N O.1 n°IN 11 �I �,
ry. / $ /, �1 1- \u14,1-01I° I�I 1, �.,, z q F3a
n YI �� 1 I ,Iti� I i I nee ig
®
u1, $ j 'III � p
I I ��l�w\,s 4' ' tl . ° l.O 11� ^ll CI I� ' 7{
`�..III• ` i ` ,.:..$1,,,-1.x.,' / ^_.; � `` �p` I III § q�p
Y ,
' ` ' I ill tP.
11 , ° g �1 I!)n ':;'1.-'i
, ,
yry`� eNi
V ,r' '- ) ..% 7.-.- -,.• '., \I ', ° A ''' '
I�Ijll "/ � ' �+ I!.f I +.�;T ��o`v^, I ,'1 `( ' ''',[..I,. •it.,,jt: ,...>-''-,, '.,-' ,,i \,, j/.' ol. ` +11 o ' �*S
i
0 ° I I Il I_ p tr I , �' a �
�e�� �f 1 `II\"I �' ‘ ;II �rfi I ygggl �
-53 t '��Fi4 7�,li I i ;'";'\ I IHI' I 1 I, a?•,-1 p, ''•.,-„3ii,...:6r ----2ii1V,,I. f. ,'Ido,.':. ,ilt,':, X, I• ,',I 'l i' 9 ,
•j�1� I: Ind I, ,I t1 1.li - I I 1 I` ;",e�i.) 'I 111-/'
(( y
: � (v36): , i 1'1. i 1 1 I. n4 l
IId Ind tII L ` a }Y tl il *
II VI .I 1 .''.''...\-VT yIliu,. I 1 I tl It ` S,
9 II `, 11 iO< p l.,,�Y'_4v6� ),,,,,`" I ,Il} l •( a. .019.OOII, i� �' 7 f b9 Q 5 �l
• •1( I �y9.
----__4— 1 . .,._ ..V 111 , 1 I , ) �I III1', ) �._'I Ij �a '- (r vi n n n g
11 ��� '' 6 R $ n I- Z n n
c5 qt,-7..±:7C.';
�' 6',II) '. ,�' ',,:LI -I Vfl tac'a-- '-, I I I I I I
,i t,,-I., I �
8`1� \1 "jl: y I ,i, 4, I I I I I
-
II
I I• _ �
AA L# .ri9M 11ill
m,rr
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Radetnacher Property
APPENDIX B: VEGETATION LIST
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
15
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
Table B.1 Plant Species Observed During Wetland Delineation.
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status'
Agropyron smithii Western wheatgrass FACU
Agrostis scabra Rough bentgrass FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed FAC
Asclepius speciosa Showy milkweed FAC
Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed FAC
Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge FACW
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle FACU
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive FACW-
Eleocharis palustris Creeping spikerush OBL
Elymus elongatus Wild rye FACU
Helianthus annuus Common sunflower FACU
Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley FAC+
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass FACW
Plantago major Common plantain FAC+
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FAC
Polygonum lapathifolium Willoweed OBL
Polygonum persicaria Pennsylvania smartweed FACW+
Rorippa palustris Bog yellow cress OBL
Rumex crispus Curly dock FACW •
Sagittaria cuneata Northern arrowhead OBL
Salix planifolia Flat-leaved willow FACW
Scirpus pungens Three square bulrush OBL
Scirpus tabernaemontani Common great bulrush OBL
Solanum trii lovam Nightshade NI
Solidago missouriensis Goldenrod NI
Spartina pectinata Prairie cordgrass OBL
Thalspi arvense Field pennycress NI
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
16
q 3 9( )
Wetland Delineation,Andesite/Rademacher Property
- Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status'
Trisetum spicatum Spike trisetum FACU
Typha latifolia Common cattail OBL
Verbascum thapsus Common mullein FACU
Xanthium strumarium Common cocklebur FAC
I Nomenclature follows Reed (1988)
Aspen Environmental Services Inc.
17
3
@k
E
3
0
a
a ia
4 �
o
q
L;\
cNI
3
_' EXHIBIT
I
,; 3'% task# oob
rt 0 w \*:
111
ti \ 4Ci' L
}
3
T
N 2
9r' 39)&.
Hello