Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br />during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection <br />and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />Fish and Wildlife <br />Although the small group of feral horses that frequent the reclaimed areas in Coal <br />Canyon were not observed during the inspection, Tonya Hammond indicated that BLM <br />has not yet moved them out of the area. BLM is improving the boundary fence further <br />up Coal Canyon, and has indicated that the horses will be moved up the canyon when <br />the fencing is completed. The mare produced another foal this year, so the group now <br />includes the mare, her 2003 and 2004 offspring, and an old stallion. <br />Chukars seem to be making fairly extensive use of various reclaimed areas. A large <br />covey was flushed from the small reclamation parcel at the "B" shaft site, and <br />individual hens with broods were flushed from reclaimed areas at the North Decline and <br />CRDA-2. A nest used this year was observed near Sediment Pond 10. <br />Revegetation/Reclamation Success <br />Revegetation stands at the various reclaimed sites were walked and qualitatively assessed. <br />The operator has contracted with a consultant to conduct quantitative monitoring and <br />assessment of revegetated parcels at various locations including the North Decline, South <br />Fan, and 2-West Portals later this year. The summary report to be prepared based on the <br />monitoring data should include recommendations for remedial measures if the data <br />indicates potential problems in achieving success standards within the 10 year liability <br />timeframe. A minor revision application was recently submitted by the operator to <br />document seedmixes used at various reclaimed areas in the past, and to incorporate minor <br />adjustments to the boundaries of the current greasewood and shadscale reference areas, as <br />discussed in the previous inspection report. <br />In the previous inspection report, the Division had recommended that the operator consider <br />use of an alternative greasewood reference site for use in success determination for areas <br />seeded with the lowland components seedmix, including the conveyor corridor and the UTL <br />vicinity. Operator has indicated that the alternative site suggested would be problematic, <br />because it is owned by Xcel Energy, and there is a likelihood that it will be disturbed in the <br />future by Xcel facility expansion. Operator also pointed out that the 1999 monitoring <br />report included in the permit as Appendix 10-4 includes a comparison of the current <br />greasewood reference area ian upland greasewood community in Coal Canyon) and the <br />alternative site to lowland greasewood type on the Colorado River alluvium across the <br />railroad tracks from former Transfer #2). The report indicated that total vegetation cover in <br />the two reference areas was comparable, and that herbaceous production in the upland <br />greasewood area was higher. For these reasons, the operator has chosen not to establish <br />a separate "lowland" greasewood reference area. <br />Qualitative assessment of revegetation within the various reclaimed areas is summarized <br />below. Several parcels seeded prior to 2002 will be quantitatively monitored by the <br />4 <br />