Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Response <br /> <br />See SCC's response to the January 3, 1995 comment letter fiom the FWS <br />above (see Response No. 4). <br />13. The DOW letter (Item No. 1) expresses a concern about mitigation of <br />habitat loss by incremental reclamation. <br />Response <br />Tab 23, Fish and Wildlife Plan, has been revised to clarify the language <br />regarding mitigation of wildlife habitats and contemporaneous <br />reclamation. <br />14. The DOW letter (Item No. 2) indicates a net loss of pre-m;n;ng habitat will <br />occur. <br />Response <br />Tab 23 has been revised to address this concern. <br />~J <br />15. The DOW letter (Item No. 3) recommends SCC consider sage grouse of <br />equal or greater concern than sharp-tailed grouse and sandhill cranes, and <br />monitor sage grouse closely. They request inclusion in any monitoring and <br />reporting process done in conjunction with the mining permit. <br />Response <br />Tab 23, Fish and Wildlife Plan, has been revised to address DOW's <br />concerns. Sage grouse are included in proposed ongoing monitoring plans, <br />with a provision to include the DOW in the distribution of monitoring data <br />and ongoing consultation process. <br />March 28. 1995 comments from the Office of Surface Mining to SCC (Ranvir <br />Singh. Chief. Federal Lands Branch to Altavilla) regardine an estimate of stream <br />depletion in order to perform their biological assessment. <br />16. Response -See Response No. G, above. <br />• <br />