Laserfiche WebLink
activities and increase in surface disturbance associated with PR-3 did not constitute a <br />mining plan action requiring Secretariat approval. The Division of Wildlife <br />wrrespondence included concerns regarding the proposed disturbance and possible impacts <br />on wildlife habitat (particulazly aspen stands within the revision area) and <br />recommendations for evaluation of possible mitigation measures and revegetation <br />considerations. The Friederichs also expressed concern with mining of the aspen habitat <br />on their property, and conveyed their desire that the disturbed areas be properly reclaimed. <br />They requested that aspen trees on the site be considered for transplanting and indicated <br />that, in regard to aspen reestablishment, they would support and encourage "numerous on- <br />site experimental relocation trial plots...A. The comments of DOW and the Friederichs <br />were forwazded to SCC, and these matters were addressed during the course of the review. <br />The Division issued a preliminary adequacy letter on April 2, 2002. The subsequent <br />review included several response submittals from SCC and additional adequacy letters <br />from DMG. The initial follow-up adequacy letter was issued July 2, 2002. SCC responded <br />with a submittal dated August 1, 2002. Issues associated with revegetation; aspen <br />reestablishment, and possible wildlife habitat mitigation approaches were discussed at a <br />meeting on September 5, 2002. The September 5th meeting included representatives of <br />SCC, DMG, and DOW, as well as Dr. Wayne Shepperd of the U.S. Forest Service Rocky <br />Mountain Research Station (RMRS), whose involvement had been requested by the parties <br />due to his expertise regazding aspen ecology and management. <br />SCC responded to questions and recommendations made by DOW and DMG, as well as <br />input provided by Dr. Shepperd, in a submittal of February 24, 2003. The submittal <br />included a proposal for a sequential aspen reestablishment study to be conducted at Seneca <br />IIW, with study design, implementation, data collection and reporting to be conducted by <br />SCC with the assistance of the RMRS. DMG issued an additional adequacy letter on April <br />3, 2003, which included a DOW comment letter of March 12, 2003. SCC's response was <br />received by DMG April 26, 2003, and reviewed by both DMG and DOW. Liza Graham <br />of DOW indicated that DOW considered the responses satisfactory in a phone conversation <br />of April 29, 2003, with Dan Mathews of DMG. A few minor narrative clarifications were <br />provided by SCC in a submittal dated Apri130, 2003. <br />One issue concerning sediment pond embanltment design was stipulated (Stipulation 30) <br />and all other issues have been resolved. <br />The Division queried the Applicant Violator System (AVS) on several occasions during the <br />PR-3 review, and there were no violations listed; recommendation based on the AVS <br />checks was "Issue". The "conditional issue" associated with RN-03, which resulted in <br />Stipulation 29, is no longer in effect, and as such the stipulation has been resolved. <br />Seneca II-W Findings Document 6 June 15, 2001 <br />Permit Renewal No. 3 May 2, 2003 <br />