2015-05-12_REVISION - C1981014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

technique, which the Division no longer accepts. For the coal operator it was unnecessary to correct permit items that did not affect how they could continue to conduct their mining or reclamation operations. There simply was no need to fix things that were not broken. It is completely unreasonable for the landowners to suggest that the previous approvals of the very old commitments should never be changed and it is even more unbelievable that the Division makes absolutely no attempt to answer any of the landowners questions or respond to their concerns. The current position of the Division on this particular mine site appears to be totally inconsistent with the infinite number of times the Division's regulations, guidelines, written policies, their letters and press releases say that if anyone has any questions their regulatory program they are just ask. Proposed EFCI Woody Plant Density Revegetation Success Standard In the Division's Guideline Regarding Selected Coal Mine Bond Release Issues issued on April 18, 1995, they address on pages 10 and 11, their feelings on the contribution of annual /biennial plants and noxious weeds with respect to final bond release revegetation success standards. They recommend that both must be deleted from the revegetation standard prior to the statistical comparison of the reclamation areas and the reference areas. They state that "under no circumstances will noxious weeds count toward the success standard." The legal basis of this policy is found in Rule 4.15.2(2) which requires that the species growing on the reclaimed area "are not poisonous or noxious ... " Why the CDRMS has been so absolutely adamant on the issue of "noxious" species for so many years and has so completely ignored the requirement to regulate "poisonous" species is grossly inconsistent. If state listed "noxious" species cannot be counted, then Division's regulations also require that recognized "poisonous" species cannot be counted either. They cannot be counted in the determination of the final revgetation success standard and to be consistent, the Division must exclude them from being required in the formulation of the woody plant density revegetation success standard. Certainly the Division cannot under any circumstances, regardless of the objections of the landowners, require that recognized "poisonous" plants be planted and included in the calculation of the woody plant revegetation success standard. The Division has no authority to mandate that any designated "poisonous" woody plant must be planted in connection with the approved seed mixtures or species of woody plants to be transplanted as a woody plant. Similarly, they cannot require that species be planted or present on the reclamation areas which are inconsistent or interfere with the approved primary post - mining land use of rangeland or grazing land. Therefore, of the fifteen species of trees or woody plants encountered in the sampling of the three Southfield Mine reference areas, based upon the consistent references in the scientific literature, the following six species of woody plants would have to be considered to be "poisonous" plants based upon the frequency of "poisoning" being considered to be "common" or "occasional" and would have to be excluded from the calculations of woody plant densities on the reclaimed areas at the Southfield Mine, as well as the calculation of the approved woody plant density standard. Gambel Oak (Quercus gambelii), One -seed Juniper (Juniperus monosperma), Pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Wild Cherry (Prunus pensylvania). 14