Laserfiche WebLink
West Elk Mine <br />{+ 2. Since no major migration routes have been identified on the permit area, it is not necessary to <br />guide migratory wildlife species by the means of fencing so as to direct their movement under <br />roadways or other obstructions which might result from construction of the surface facilities. <br />3. There are no ponds containing toxic-forming materials; however, should such a facility be <br />constructed, the pond will be fenced to exclude wildlife. <br />4. With regard to bald eagles and Canada lynx, the potential effects of surface-disturbing projects <br />on populations and designated habitats (at the time specific surface disturbing projects are <br />proposed) will be evaluated, and mitigation measures will be applied to avoid adverse impacts <br />to these federally listed species, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. <br />5. Aquatic communities existing in the North Fork will be protected by the use of 50-foot wide <br />buffer zones of undisturbed land along stream channels. <br />6. The use of persistent pesticides is not anticipated. <br />7. Mountain Coal Company will, to the extent possible, prevent, control, and suppress range, <br />forest, and coal fires that are not approved by CDOW as part of this or any other management <br />plan. <br />8. Since wildlife habitat is to be the secondary post-mining land use, MCC has selected plant <br />species to be used on reclaimed areas based on the following criteria: <br />• a. Their proven nutritional value for wildlife <br />b. Their use for cover for wildlife species <br />c. Their ability to support and enhance wildlife habitat after release of bond <br />These factors have been discussed in other portions of the permit document. As discussed, the intent of <br />MCC is to distribute the plant species in clusters so as to maximize the benefit to wildlife. This will <br />provide adequate edge effect, cover, and forage benefits for the wildlife species occurring on and <br />adjacent to the site. <br />Protection of Htdrologic Balance - 2.05.6(3) <br />The hydrologic balance and probable hydrologic consequences are discussed after Subsidence Survey, <br />Subsidence Monitoring and 'Subsidence Control Plan - 2.05.6. The surface effects of muting on the <br />hydrologic balance in the SOD area are anticipated to be minimal. Section 2.05.6 (6) in this <br />document describes at length the anticipated impacts to the ground surface resulting from mining <br />activities in the SOD. It is acknowledged throughout this permit that numerous landslides and <br />slumps are present throughout the MCC pernlit area_?ind these features generally move in response <br />to saturation by precipitation events. Monitoring plans included in 2.05.6 (6) describe how MCC <br />will observe these features for effects due to mining related activities. Protection of the Hydrologic <br />Balance and Probable Hydrologic Consequences are discussed as they relate to the effects of <br />subsidence and follow the Subsidence Section of 2.05.6 (6). <br />s <br />2.05-103 Revised June 2005 PRIO, Rev. Alarch 2006: Rev. Apri1 2006 PR10; May 2006 PRIO, Nov. 2006 TR107, Sep. 2007 PR-12; Feb. 2008PR-12