REV98934

• Permit No: C1980004
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 8/1/2006
• Doc Name: Review Letter
• From: DMG
• To: J.E. Stover & Associates
• Type & Sequence: TR15
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

JUN-22-200'6 THU 10'24 AN FAX N0. P. 03
alluvia] soils, asite-specific determination revealed no Uinta basin hookless cactus and
microhabitat conditions unsuitable for this species. Likewise, no suitable soils that could
produce potential habitat for the De Beque phacelia or Parachute penstemon were found at the
site. Based on the infom~ation provided in your analysis and the BA, the Service concurs with
your "no effect" Endings far the Mexican spotted owl, Canada lynx, Uinta basin hookless cactus,
De Beque phaceiia, and Parachute penstemon.
Your analysis arrives at "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" determinations for the
bald eagle and yellow-billed cuckoo. Bald eagles aze known to use the Grand Valley's Colorado
.River comdor as winter foraging habitat, but on-site surveys revealed no suitable roosting or nest
sites. Migrant eagles using the East Salt Creek drainage could potentially be adversely affected
by vehicular collisions or contact with power lines at or near the site. Regarding the yellow-
billed cuckoo, approximate}y 2 acres ofperennial and 4 acres of ephemeral riparian habitat was
found within or adjacent to the proposed action area. However, a Mot likely to adversely affect"
detennination was reached because the density of the cottonwood canopy is likely too low to be
used by ihi.s species. Based on the information provided in your analysis and the BA, the Service
concurs with your "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" determinations for the bald
eagle and yellow-billed cuckoo.
Regazding the Colorado pikeminnow, humpbac]: chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail, the
Service's view is that any water depletions from the Upper Colorado River Basin are considered
to adversely affect these federally-listed, endangered fishes or their habitats. Therefore, you
were correct to request section 7 consultati on regarding the potential effects of the project. It is
our understanding that the action proposed at this time involves no increase in the estimated net
annual water depletion to the Upper Colorado River Basin. Prior consultations for the depletions
at the McClane Canyon Mine occurred in 1986, 1992, 2000, and 2002, and for the Munger
Canyon Mine in 1989, as outlined in your letter. Therefore, the existing Recovery
Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in. the Upper Colorado River Basin will
continue to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeapazdy to the endangered
fishes by the project-caused depletions.
The 5etvice decisions in this document aze based on the information provided by the Office of
Surface Mining. If new information becomes available, if a new species becomes listed, if
incidental take occurs, if the total average annual amount of water depleted by this project
changes, or if any other project element changes which alters the operation of the project from
that which is described in your correspondence and which may affect any endangered or
threatened species in a manner or to an extent not considered in this biological opinion, forma]
section 7 consultation should be reinitiated. The Office of Surface Mining should condition its
approval documents to retain jurisdiction should section 7 consultation need to be reinitiated.
If the Service can be of further assistance, please contact Larry Thompson at the letterhead
address ar [phone], extension 39.
LThompsnn:nSMCan W InppalaehiaMlningMeCluneCanyonSM ungerCanynnMinuepcrmiu;CLdoe:U61606