Laserfiche WebLink
?MENT OF r5 <br />p United Mates DepaiIWent of the Interior <br />b <br />_ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE <br />ARCH 3, Al A Ecological Services <br />764 Horizon Drive, BuildinL, B <br />Grand Junction, Colorado 8106-3946 <br />IN REPLY REFER TO "'_® <br />ES/CO:OSM C <br />TAILS 65413-2010-I-0069 <br />APR 1 °? ? ^? - _ <br />:. c? ???a 'x', April 12, 2010 - <br />Memorandum 'Mining Ord Sa?tY <br />To: Natural Resource Specialist.. Office of Surface Mining.. Reclamation. and <br />Enforcement. Denver. Colorado <br />From: Acting Western Colorado Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecological <br />Services; Grand Junction, Colorado -t <br />Subject: Mountain Coal Company's West Elk Mine Technical Revision 120 (TR-120) <br />The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed your March 11, 2010, letter regarding the <br />proposed Refuse Pile Expansion, East Area project under TR-120. The subject project is <br />proposed to cover about 80 acres with coal mining refuse and is located in T. 13S, R. 90W. <br />S. 15, Delta County, Colorado. The project site consists primarily of a Ouel•cl[s gambelii <br />(Gamble oak) community. <br />The Service concurs with Your "may affect, not likely to adverselaffect" determination for the <br />Canada lynx ("L)nx Canadensis) due to insignificant impacts to the-1 r habitat. The Service also <br />concurs with vour "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the four endangered <br />Colorado River fishes. There will be some evaporative loss from a sediment pond used in <br />conjunction with the new refuse pile so there was a recalculation of the entire coal mine <br />operation water use. The overall depletion was 47.1 acre-feet. which is less than the amount <br />(82.4 acre-feet) covered in a previous June, 9, 2005, biological opinion for the coal mine <br />(ES-6-RO-95-F-001-GJ387). Since the depletion amount of 47.1 acre-feet is less than that <br />previously consulted on there is no need for formal consultation in association with TR-120. <br />You had determined that TR-120 would "not likely jeopardize" the greenback cuttlu•oat trout <br />(Onchorhvnchus clarki stomias) as you did for the yellow-billed cuckoo (000C),''71J6'americanus) <br />and Gurmison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). The cuckoo and prairie dog are candidate <br />species and there is little to no habitat impacted so we concur with the "not likely to jeopardize" <br />determinations for them. However. the -reenback cuttlu oat trout is federally threatened. <br />Consequently, the determination would have to be chanUed to "no effect" or `•mav affect. not <br />likely to adversely affect". Vve discussed the status of the greenback and detenminations on the <br />phone on April 9. 2010. As we discussed, there wi11 be no impact to tributaries that the <br />Ureenback cutthroat trout inhabits in the North Fork drainage so we concurred that there would <br />be --no effect' to the species. For future reference there is no need to obtain concurrence from us <br />on species for which '-no effect" determinations are made. For future reference there is also no