Laserfiche WebLink
6. "Will the operation adversely affect Bald Eagles or Golden Eagles nesting within one mile <br />of the site? <br />"Mitigation is also required for disturbance of the wildlife habitat.... the area wildlife <br />has trot been portrayed correctly in the Camilledi application. Bald Engles are 3/4 miles <br />apstrennt,not 8 miles downstrennt as the applicntu has said. The Golden Eagles are <br />nesting less than 1/4 mile soteth of the mine site. " (Vats Norstrand; 4/5/01 & 5/8/0/) <br />"...venter drawdown affects wetlmtds, cottonwood trees, and other riparian vegetation <br />that provides healdty habitat for wildlife. /will be effected when trees die and wildlife <br />moves elsewhere.... loss of w•ild[ife habitat as could happen as the vegetation dies buck <br />from lock of water. " (Landers, Van Norstrand; 6/14/01) <br />Division Response -The applicant has provided written verification that representatives of the <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife have reviewed the application and plans for the proposed mining <br />operation, have inspected the proposed site and surrounding area, and find no evidence to <br />substantiate the assertion of nearby nesting eagles, bald or golden. Neither the U.S. Fish & <br />Wildlife Service or the Division of Wildlife have submitted any comments suggesting negative <br />or adverse impacts to nesting eagles in the affected land or surrounding area. Neither the U.S. <br />Fish & Wildlife Service or the Division of Wildlife have submitted any comments requesting <br />mitigation measures for protect wildlife in the affected land or surrounding area. The applicant <br />will implement a water monitoring program using a number of peizometers or water wells to <br />determine if and when potential impacts to groundwater in [he surrounding area are occuring due <br />to dewatering. Also, the applicant will implement an "irrigation" plan to recharge the water table <br />and minimize any possible impacts to adjacent wetlands and woody vegetation during <br />dewatering. <br />7. "Will the operation minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance speciflcal[y with <br />regards to possible "pit capture" during flood events?" (Sec. 34-32.5-I16(4)(h)) <br />wrong floodplain irtformatiott. " (Landers; 6/14/01) <br />... loss of recreational fishing downsteam caused by pit capture and river contamination <br />especially capture of [he silt ponds as could happen in a 100-year flood." (Landers, Van <br />Norstrand; 6/14/01) <br />Division Response -The applicant has committed to no excavation within the "floodways" of <br />either Trout Creek or the Yampa River. This commitment is consistent with the criteria specified <br />in [he Division's 8/98 /n-Stream Aggregate Ea'truction & Reclcunation Guidance Document (for <br />in-stream & ndjncettt alluvial operntiotts). The applicant has conducted and provided an <br />engineering analysis to predict the locations of the floodways of Trout Creek and the Yampa <br />River in the affected land and surrounding azea. The floodways were determined with HEC-RAS <br />v. 2.2 Analysis using site specific, surveyed cross-sections. The method of "equal conveyance" <br />