Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />• Response <br />Tab 11 (text and Appendix 11-1) has been revised to include a discussion of <br />reptiles and amphibians. <br />January 20. 1994 urelirrrinar•y adequacy review by CDMG. <br />10. The CDMG's adequacy review comment No.83 contains a question <br />regarding a statement in Tab 23 of the application which indicates <br />reclamation of the hauh•oad will provide suitable habitat for the Sandhill <br />Crane. <br />Response <br />The haulroad in question is proposed for retention in the post-m;n;ng <br />landscape. Tab 23, Fish and Wildlife Plan, has been revised to correct this <br />erzor and to discuss impacts and mitigation for Sandhill Crane habitat. <br />March 8 1995 comments from the FWS to CDMG and March 10, comments from <br />• the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) fortivarded to SCC uer the CDMG letter <br />from Bur~rrraier to Altavilla/Wendt dated March 29, 1995. <br />11. The FWS letter (paragraph 2) includes a discussion of its January 3, 1995 <br />recommendation to remove/relocate nests of raptors and songbird's to deter <br />nesting in mine areas. The FWS continues to recommend <br />relocation/removal of raptor nests prior to m;ning, but has reconsidered its <br />assessment of songbird nests. <br />Resuonse <br />The SCC has addressed the FWS's concerns (see response to adequacy <br />concern No. 4 above). <br />12. The FWS letter (paragraph 2) includes additional discussion of disturbance <br />of riparian areas. They have determined that relocation of songbird nests <br />will not be necessary. However, they reiterate the need to relocate/remove <br />rapor nests prior to the nesting season. <br />• <br />