REV09460 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VkNT O P~ y . ~*~ ' ,~~ RECE+VED IN REPLY REFER TO: ES/CO:CDMG MS 65412 GJ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services 764 Horizon Drive, Building B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 January 17, 2006 JAN 23 2006 Dn4srcn ofAfiner~ 6 Geolp~, Dan T. Mathews, Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 ~Denver,_Colorado 80203 _ _ ,- . ~ _ „ _ _ __ _ . ,_ _ _ __ ,_ _ _ _ Deaz Mr. Mathews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter dated November 22, 2005, regazding Permit Renewal Application No. 6 for the McClane Canyon Mine, Permit No. C-1980- 004. The application was submitted to your office by Central Appalachia Mining, LLC. The McClane Canyon Mine is an underground coal operation approximately 20 miles north of Loma, in Garfield County, Colorado. The permitted surface disturbance is 9.5 acres. The existing permit will expire July 6, 2006. It is uncleaz from your letter that you have coordinated with a Federal action agency (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining, etc.) regarding the proposed project. For purposes of informal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology may be designated by the Federal action agency to act as their representative. The Service advises you to contact the appropriate Federal action agency to coordinate future consultation with the Service. Your letter also states that in order for you to approve the permit renewal, you are required to make a finding that "the activities would not affect the continued existence of endangered or ___~.... _ ,_ -threatened-species-or-result-in-ehedestruction-or-adverse modification of their habitats as - determined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973..." You are correct that it is the responsibility of the project proponent to evaluate the potential effects of the project and issue a fording to the Service. A written assessment should be prepared and submitted for our review. The ultimate conclusions of the assessment should be expressed as "effect determinations" for each of the species considered (e.g., "no effect", "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect", etc.). The analysis of project effects should be sufficient to provide the rationale that led to your concluding determinations. If your assessment contains sufficient information, and contains concluding determinations of effect for each of the threatened and endangered species under consideration, the Service can respond with a decision regazding your conclusions.