GENERAL34787

• Permit No: C1980004
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 6/22/2006
• Doc Name: Comments on Biological Assessment
• From: OSM
• To: Fish & Wildlife
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

JUN-22-2006 THU 10;24 AM FAX N0. P, 03

alluvial 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 infornation provided in your analysis and the BA, the Service concurs with
your "no effect" Endings for the Mexican spotted owl, Canada lynx, Uinta basin hookless cactus,
De Beque plmacelia, 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 are known to use the Grand Valley's Colorado
River corridor 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 neaz the site. Regarding the yellow-
billed cuckoo, approximately 2 acres of peremiial and 4 acres of ephemeral riparian habitat was
found within or adjacent to the proposed action area. However, a `4mot likely to adversely affect"
determination was reached because the density of the cottonwood canopy is likely too low to be
used by tlmi.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, humpback chub, ra2orbacl: 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 consultation 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 tlme 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 jeopardy to the endangered
fishes by the project-caused depletions.
The Setice decisions in this document aze based on the information provided by the Office of
Surface Mining. If new information becommes 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 wlmich 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, fonnal
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.
Tf the Service can be of further assistazice, please contact Larry Thompson at the letterhead
address or [phone], extension 39.
LThompson:OSMCenwlnppalachiaMiningMcClancCmiyon~M unsn'Canyon M incsPermitsCGdow061 GaG
2