Laserfiche WebLink
;:~_ • <br />Date: March 5, 1993 <br />To: Harry Ranney 1I <br />From: Dan Hernandez~l <br />• ~iiiiiiiiiiuiiiiii <br />Re: Carbon Junction Wildlife Habitat Mitigation <br />I've read the 2/22/93 memo from DOW regarding mitigation of <br />wildlife habitat at or near the Carbon Junction mining operations. <br />I discussed the DOW concerns with Dan Mathews and Dave Berry and <br />both provided some useful insights. <br />Mitigation of wildlife habitat lost by mining operations has been <br />approved by the Division in the past. Sites where this has <br />occurred include Trapper, Colowyo, and Orchard Valley. However, at <br />those sites, mitigation occurred within the permit area. No one <br />seems to remember whether mitigation has ever been imposed outside <br />of a permit boundary. <br />After listening to comments from Dan and Dave, I propose we do the <br />following: <br />1. Recommend to Steve Renner that we work through the State Office <br />on coordinating this effort with the Grand Junction DOW office. <br />The Grand Junction office is apparently the one providing <br />habitat mitigation recommendations to the large surface mines in <br />the northwest part of the state. We have to be careful, <br />however, to not immediately assume that mitigation recommended <br />by Grand Junction DOW for the northwest is appropriate for the <br />Durango area. We also definitely don't want to pit one DOW <br />office against another. <br />2. Determine the exact number of both permit acres and affected <br />acres proposed by the current applicants. Durango DOW is <br />apparently basing their recommended 540 acres of habitat <br />mitigation on the 1981 proposed operation. <br />3. Once the interaction between the three offices is established, <br />ask the Durango office: <br />A. why they recommend that habitat be mitigated on a permit <br />area basis rather than an affected area basis; <br />B. why they believe the mitigation must be on a "one acre of <br />mitigated area to one acre of affected area" ratio. As <br />wildlife is often seen within active mining areas in the <br />northwest, it is possible that the ratio could be reduced to <br />something along the lines of "one-half (one-third, two- <br />fifths, etc.) of one acre of mitigated area to one acre of <br /> <br />