APPCOR11463

• Permit No: C1996084
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Name: LORENCITO CANYON MINE PERMIT REVISION EXHIBIT 10
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Lorencito Coal Company
' Lorencito Canyon Mine
(Permit No. C-96-084)
Division of Wildlife Issues and Responses
for June 5, 1997 Letter
Recently, the Division of Minerals and Geology (Division) completed review of the responses of
our initial adequacy review and forwarded them to you for the Lorencito Canyon Mine permit
application. Specifically excluded from this correspondence was a detailed Division concerning
those issues identified by the Division of Wildlife (DOW). The Division has completed review
of these issues and would like to summarize and focus any remaining concerns remaining with
regard to wildlife and related issues. From my discussions with Chris Kloster of the DOW, they
will not be in a position to formally respond to LCC's first responses until sometime later this
month. His verbal indications is that, excluding the shrub establishment issue, LCC's first
responses seemed reasonable, except for the lack of population sampling of the Flathead chub.
Due to the pending July 2, 1997 decision date, it is important that those other remaining issues be
identified for your consideration.
In our letter of May 27, 1997, our response to Rule 2.05.6(2) and Rule 4.18 was as follows:
Rule 2.05./6(2) Fish and Wildlife Plan
Under this section, all responses were found adequate except as listed below.
111. Correspondence was received from John Woodling of the Division of Wildlife and
Chris Kloster of the Division of Wildlife. Based on our discussion on May 28,
1997, the DMG will be reviewing this correspondence and will respond to LCC by
June 5, 1997 with regard to the various issues identified.
Rule 4.18 Protection of Fish. Wildlife and Related Environmental Values
The responses to questions 198 and 199 are adequate. Currently, the Division is
evaluating the comments of the Division of Wildlife with regard to the issues as identified
in their letters received May 16, 1997 and May 28, 1997. Many of the issues fall under
various categories of water quality and tevegetation. However, DMG will summarize and
focus the issues under the framework of their direct comments and cite Rules as necessary.
In the original DOW correspondence concerning the coal exploration project, the DOW
specifically pointed out the importance of the mine permit area with regard to wildlife habitat and
values. The area is a fall concentration area for bears, severe winter range and winter range for
deer and elk, and is important turkey habitat. Threatened and endangered species such as the Bald
eagle and Mexican spotted owl tray also use the surrounding areas. Development of the area west
• of I-25, excluding mining, has already forced large ungulates onto private lands where game
damage is occurring in areas not previously subject to this activity. Recreational activities, such
as hunting, are important to both the landowner and the public, as the area is included in the