APPCOR10169 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. L Ronel Finley Page 2 July 5, 1985 including permitting and construction and thus, design of the powerlines for raptor protection. As discussed with Mr. Lockhardt, Peabody has already responded ade- quately to the comment concerning the proper methodology to use to raptor-proof tfie powerlines over which we have control (see Page 14-12, Tab 14, Seneca II-W Mine and Reclamation Plan. 2. Threatened and Endangered Species - In regards to the federally listed fishes, Peobody has obtained a copy of the USFWS discussion paper on the Windy Gap Process as It Applies to Existing Coal Mines in the UCRB, applied it to the Seneca II-W proposed operation, and found no adverse affect. These discussions and results are located in Tab 7, Pages 7-190 to 7-1906 in the I!-W application, as revised April 15, 1985. Concerning the whooping crane issue, I contacted Bob Leachman, Office of Threatened and Endangered Species, Grand Junction, for specific locations where whooping cranes have been sighted with the sandhill cranes. According to Mr. Leachman (letter 7-2-85), the one reported siting of a whooping crane in the area was reported as "east of Hayden", September 15, 1981. In responding to earlier comments, I discussed the history of the alignment of the tie-across haul road (see Page I I-45, Tab I I, Page 14-13, Tab 14 and Pages 63-63F of Response to Comments to CMLR), which the final alignment was predicated on eliminating potential impacts to the sandhill cranes. Both Mr. Leachman and Mr. Lockhardt agreed that, assuming the sandhill cranes have been adequately mitigated by avoidance, there would be no impact on the whooping crane if they occur in the area. A statement to that fact can be added to Page 14-13. 3. Migratory Birds -This particular topic created a lot of discussion between Mike and myself. Frankly, I am not sure I understand the specific concerns of impacts on migratory birds from mining on either a biological or regulatory basis. However, for purposes of this permit, Peabody will make a commitment to a species diversity and abundance study which could help document the possible impacts of mining on pas- serines. The commitment, to be on Page 14-14 (Tab 14) would be to discuss and implement the study with USFWS and CDOW. No specifics on the study need be included in the permit application. 4. Big Game - As detoiled on Page 14-13, Tab 14 of the revised permit application, Peabody agrees to monitoring road kills and if the road kills become excessive to work out a plan with CDOW to alleviate the impact. The only addition that needs to be made to this commitment is to report these incidents to CDOW. This will be done. Postmining Land Use/Reclamation -After considerable discussion, Mike agreed that the II-W Reclamation Plan was adequate for wildlife and, subsequently, does not constitute a change in land use. No change in the application is necessary for This comment. It is apparent that the ability to reestablish aspen causes a large degree of conster- nation. It is a concern that is shared by Peabody and other coal-mining companies. We will be continuing to look at methods which assure a higher degree of success in aspen stand reestablishment and rejuvenation.