My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-12-09_REVISION - C1982057
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1982057
>
2010-12-09_REVISION - C1982057
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:47 PM
Creation date
12/15/2010 1:05:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
12/9/2010
Doc Name
Proposed Decision and Findings
From
DRMS
To
Seneca Coal Company
Type & Sequence
RN5
Email Name
SB1
SLB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
were used. No Boreal Toad populations were observed. The survey results indicated that <br />the toads either do not exist in the extension area or exist in numbers too low to detect. <br />As part of the PR-2 application, a water depletion estimate was conducted by SCC to <br />determine potential impacts from mining on endangered Colorado River fishes. The <br />proposed mining activities at Seneca H-W will cause an average annual depletion of 5.9 <br />acre-feet to Dry Creek, tributary to the Yampa River in the Upper Colorado River Basin. A <br />letter dated October 7, 1999, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the OSM, stated <br />that actions with less than 100 acre-feet of water depletion are not subject to payment of <br />depletion fees required by the Recovery Implementation Program for endangered fish in the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin. <br />The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) was consulted during the PR-3 review, and they <br />participated extensively in the review, through correspondence, site visits, phone contact, <br />and meetings with Division and SCC staff. DOW was quite concerned with the disturbance <br />to aspen forest habitat proposed within PR-3, and they initially recommended that off-site <br />mitigation be considered within aspen stands adjacent to the disturbed area (either <br />controlled burning or mechanical treatments). Based on evaluation of aspen habitat in the <br />vicinity, it was ultimately determined that such treatments were not warranted. DOW <br />offered significant input regarding revegetation approaches to enhance native shrub <br />establishment success, and they were very involved in review of the aspen reestablishment <br />study proposal. The Division of Wildlife was also contacted by the Division in association <br />with TR-50, PR-4, PR-5, and RN-4. DOW made comments that were taken into account <br />with respect to revegetation plan changes associated with TR-50; they made no official <br />comments on PR-4, PR-5, RN-4, or RN-5. DOW did concur with the approved woody <br />plant density standard (200 stems per acre overall and 2000 stems per acre within <br />concentrated planting areas). <br />Pursuant to the finding required by Rule 2.07.6 (2) (n), and on the basis of information set <br />forth in the permit application and consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and <br />the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Division finds the proposed operation will not affect <br />the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or <br />adverse modification of their critical habitat. <br />The application contains commitments to obtain specific revision approvals from the <br />Division prior to any use of persistent pesticides or herbicides on the permit area.. <br />The operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. <br />Seneca II-W Findings Document 54 C1982057 <br />Permit Renewal No. 5 December 9, 2010
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.