Laserfiche WebLink
13. The Division hereby approves the post-mining land use of the operation. It was determined <br /> that rangeland/wildlife land uses meet the requirements of Rule 4.16 for the permit area <br /> (2.07.6(2)(1)). <br /> 14. Specific approvals required under Rule 4 are addressed in section B (2.07.6(2)(m)). <br /> 15. The Division finds that the activities proposed by the applicant would not affect the <br /> continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or <br /> adverse modification of their critical habitats (2.07.6(2)(n)). In 2021 both the Colorado <br /> Division of Wildlife (DOW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)were notified <br /> of Permit Renewal No. 9, and concerns were specifically solicited with respect to potential <br /> effects of the operation on endangered or threatened species of plants or animals. Responses <br /> were received from both agencies, and information was provided by the operator to address <br /> the identified concerns. <br /> During the course of the RN-06/TR-15 review in 2005 and 2006, OSMRE prepared a <br /> Biological Assessment addressing the potential effects of the operation on federally listed <br /> (threatened and endangered) and candidate species. OSMRE also initiated formal <br /> consultation with the USFWS, due to the adverse effects of water depletions to the upper <br /> Colorado River on the endangered fish species that reside in the river (Colorado <br /> pikeminnow, humpback chub,razorback sucker, and bonytail). In a memorandum dated <br /> June 16, 2006 "Comments on the Biological Assessment for McClane Canyon Mine, Permit <br /> No. C-1980-004, and Munger Canyon Mine, Permit C-81-020",USFWS indicated <br /> concurrence with the OSM Biological Assessment regarding potential impacts to the <br /> Mexican spotted owl, Canada lynx, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, DeBeque phacelia, and <br /> Parachute penstemon("no effect"). USFWS also indicated concurrence with the OSM <br /> Biological Assessment determination for the bald eagle and yellow-billed cuckoo ("may <br /> affect,but not likely to adversely affect"). <br /> Regarding the endangered fish species of the upper Colorado River,USFWS noted that, <br /> while they consider any water depletions from the Upper Colorado River Basin to adversely <br /> affect the endangered fishes and their habitats,they concluded that"the existing Recovery <br /> Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin <br /> will continue to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy to the <br /> endangered fishes by the project-caused depletions". The USFWS determination was based <br /> on information provided in the application indicating that the proposed operations would not <br /> result in any increase in the estimated net annual water depletion to the Upper Colorado <br /> River Basin. <br /> USFWS had raised concerns regarding potential impacts of water depletion associated with <br /> the operation on endangered fish species of the Colorado River during previous permitting <br /> actions. In 1992,USFWS determined that the project was not likely to jeopardize the <br /> continued existence of the endangered fishes if the company made a contribution to the <br /> Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River <br /> Basin. The operator made the recommended one-time payment of$41.93 ($11.98 per acre <br /> foot of projected annual depletion) on November 16, 1992. In a letter of January 11, 2000 <br /> xii <br />