My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12059
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12059
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:25 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:26:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981020
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/16/1982
Doc Name
MEMO REVIEW OF MUNGER CANYON AND MCCLANE CANYON MINE PERMIT APPLICATIONS SHERIDAN ENTERPRISES INC
From
USFW
To
OSM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
T- <br />• • <br /> <br />The effects of simultaneous mine operations in '+cClane Canyon <br />and "unger Canyon on wintering deer or other wildlife cannot <br />be accurately predicted. Procedures outlined in the Protective <br />Measures, Resource 'lonitoring and Reclamation sections of both <br />apolication wildlife plans, reflect basically sound principles <br />and goals. We believe that close coordination with the Division <br />of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and IJildllfe <br />Service will aid in implementation of adequate wildlife programs <br />and will help minimize chances for unexpected conflicts. Specifi- <br />cally, we would like to recommend: <br />That contingency options for habitat mitigation or en- <br />hancement be developed in cooperation with the Of)W and <br />RLM in the event that wildlife impacts result or are <br />greater than anticipated. <br />That impact monitoring efforts be coordinated through <br />DDW to insure comparability with existing procedures. <br />That future rantor surveys be revieYred for adequacy by <br />D041 and FWS. +Je would be willing to assist in develop- <br />ment.of a rantor survey program. <br />We would like to make one final observation. In reviewing the <br />'lunger Canyon and '+cClane Canyon mine nlans, ire have noted very <br />little discussion of their plans for coal transportation. It <br />appears that Sheridan Enterprises consideration for wildlife <br />impacts ends at the mine permit boundary. We ar?, indeed, very <br />concerned about coal haulage impacts to wildlife. We are particular- <br />ly troubled by Sheridan Enterprises' failure to clarify their <br />intentions in regard to a rail transport system (s?e attached <br />June 18, 1981 memo to RLM). The fact that they are even considering <br />this option could be extracted from only one casual statement <br />in the wildlife portion of the `icClane Canyon permit apolication. <br />I~lhile we believe that a rail system may, in the long run, be <br />a desirable means of coal transportation, construction of a rail <br />corridor opens many more questions about impacts to wildlife. <br />Important riparian areas that are occupied by high federal interest <br />birds may be potentially threatened. - <br />If you have any questions on these comments, please feel free <br />to give me a call. <br />SincerAly, <br />J~~ ~ ~ <br />Ronel Finley <br />cc: Rill Clark, DObf, rrand Junction, C~ <br />Doug F1cVean, RL^1, brand .)unction, CO <br />Tom Lytle, DOW, ,rand Junction, CO <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.