Laserfiche WebLink
• -rt- • <br />The West Ridge area of the Fdn~r mine ir, ,, prcviou~, 1~1 -; r. ri 1, mined .~rrca as rlescci bed <br />above. P&hf has committed to reclamntinn of this area. Certain chemical amendments <br />may be necessary to insure revegr_tation success (see Soils section). Since no pr^- <br />disturbance information exists relative to the vegetation of the area, application <br />of the revegetation success criteria proposed in Appendix 2.9-B may be inappropriate. <br />To this end, the Division stipulates: <br />8. PITTSBURG AND h1ID[JAY, IN CO?JJ 1/NOTION f:'ITfI T11 L' UI VIS ION, [JfhT, DETER^IINE <br />APPLICABLE REVEGETATION SUCCESS CRITGRTA Ff1R TII L' AREA KNOf/;V A.S I/EST RIDGE <br />AT THE EDNA FIINE. TII GS F. SUCCE.S.S CR I'fC'RIA SIIAT,T, BF. DETER.+TI NED NO Ir1TER TfMN <br />+7ARCN 31 , 1982. <br />XII. FISN AND WILDLIFE (2.04.11, 2.0,.5(2), 4.16 <br />A series of studies on terrestrial wildlife and aquatic b.ioloyy were submitted in <br />the permit application, Volume 5, .Section 2.7. The review of this section by this <br />Division and the Colorado Division of I•/i.lrllife has determined the baseline infor- <br />mation to be adequate. These sturlics included the establishment of wildlife study <br />areas in each of the eight vegetation typos, and sir. aquatic sampling sites. More <br />in-depth studies located sharptail grouse leks in the arliacen[ area, but not in the <br />permit area. Also, raptor nests and elk calving grounds c:c m mapped. No threatened <br />or endangered species or unique habitats wore identifier? in the permit area. There- <br />fore, on the basis of available information, this Division `rods that the proposed <br />operation will not affect the con ti need er.is trance nF enrlannercd or threatened <br />species or result in the destruction or adverse moriiFicatinn of their critical habitats <br />(2.07.6 (7) (n)) . <br />The major source of tzrrr_strial eildlife mitigation for this project i.s so-called <br />underutilized adjacent habitat, I~nlwne 12, ection 1.7. ~)ualitativc information <br />supplied on pages 2.7-25, 2.i-28 and 2.7-2~ supports this assumption. <br />In Section 4.7.I, Pittsburg and Midway has submitted an eIk and deer monitoring <br />plan. <br />VIII. PRTPIF. FA R,~ITaf/D (7./I.1. i7, 2.06.6, 4.,'S! <br />The Division has made a negative deterrrrinat.ion for the presence of prime farmlands <br />within the proposed permit area. The decision was based on the evidence provided by <br />the Soil Conservation Service that them arc no prim~• f,trmlanrl mapping units within <br />the proposed permit area. This evidence can be Tounr7 in Volume 5, Sr_ction 2.9, pa ye <br />2.9-19. <br />The application is in compliance with 2. O~J.17 and 2.Ou.6. <br />