Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~u estir,,ate sediment yiela, the concentration or susoenoeo soiic. <br />I~ ~ in runoff water was assumed oy the applicant to b= ]u,UUu r,:~;.. <br />and multiplied ~y annual runoff vo]ume to approximate the annu~, <br />seaiment accum.,iation. Weather the runoff estimates nor tn. <br />suspenaed solids concentration were substantiates. Tne re sultan: <br />sediment estir,a.=_ is consiaerably lo,~rer than estimates for <br />seaiment delivery per acre of disturoance for other mines in tn. <br />vicinity. <br />_ -~ <br />Ins applicant :ill De required to suostantiate the susoenaeC• <br />' solics assumption and the annual runofr es imate or revise the <br />estimates accoraino to more acceptable metnoas. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> XII1. Fish and Wildlife - Rules '[.U4.11, 2.05.6(2) and 4.18 <br />' <br /> Twu areas of deficien:.ies have been identified by the Division of i•iined <br /> Land Keclamation and the Division of Wildlife with respect to the Grassy <br /> Creek Fish and h'ildlife Litigation Pian. Tnese deficiencies will need to <br />t be resolved before a permit can be issued for the operation. <br /> First o` all, ure a~,licant proposes to return the disturber area w <br /> grass type com.nunity rather tnan return it to the mountain snruu, aspen <br /> antl sagebrusn na~itat which existed prior to mining. Shrub <br /> reestaolisnment has not been addressed as a part of the reclamation <br /> plan. In the wildlife baseline portion of the application it is stated <br /> that the characteristic of the naturally existing vegetation which <br /> enhances its value as critical winter range for mule deer and elk and as <br />' a migration area for elk is the favorable mix of shrubs, brush ana <br />aspen. The applicant has not supplied site specific inform <br />ti <br />ith <br /> a <br />on w <br />respect to use of the mine site by deer and elk which would make <br /> predictions of the effect of the habitat modification on these wildlife <br /> populations possinle. <br /> Secondly, the applicant has solicited comments from the Division of <br /> ildlife (UOW) with respect to mitigation of wildlife impacts for the <br />operation. The DU+i suggested habitat <br />ha <br />t t <br />i <br /> en <br />ncemen <br />echn <br />ques which would <br /> increase the forage and cover value of undisturbed areas thereby reducing <br /> the overall impact of the operation. The response was that this would be <br />contrary to the goals of the i+~ined Land Reclamation Uivision ( <br /> see page <br /> V-2). This is not altogether true. In light of the applicant's and <br /> landowner's wishes to establish a predominantly grassland vegetation type <br /> on reclaimed lands the practice of habitat enhancement could rebuce the <br /> impact to wildlife significantly both during and after mining. <br /> It niay be necessary for the applicant to meet with representatives of <br /> rained Land Reclamation and the UUw to discuss these issues and devise <br /> workable solutions to these problems prior to permit issuance. <br /> <br />