APPCOR12443 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' ' ' 1 • • J.E. Stover & Associates -8- May 31, 1996 Bowie No. 2 Mine concise. The sampler pointed out that a small error occurred during sampling of the meadow area. The Division agrees that missing one sample is insignificant and will not affect the overall results of the baseline sampling. It is also agreed that a technical standard should be applied for the dry meadow area. In addition, the small difference in matching the mixed shrub reference area with the mixed shrub disturbed area is also insignificant given that the reference area has the higher productivity. It will also not be necessary to conduct any additional woody plant sampling as the information submitted is sufficient to determine a woody plant density standard, should one be attached to the success standards. One area that may require additional submittals is the"wet area". The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers has submitted comments concerning disturbing wetlands. It does appear from the vegetation map submitted that some of the proposed disturbance may occur in a "wet area". This area, and any other suspected wet areas that may be disturbed, should be further evaluated to determine their exact status as a wetland or not. The areal delineation of 10 acres or larger to quantitatively sample a community does not apply in this situation. Therefore; /21. All areas that have been preliminarily designated as "wet v areas" and have the potential to be disturbed, should be further evaluated as to whether they are defined wetlands which fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit process. If they are defined as wetlands, additional sampling may be necessary. 2.04.11 Fish and Wildlife Resources Information The operator has not included a study of fish and wildlife and their habitats within the proposed permit area and portions of the adjacent area as required under rule 2.04.11. 22. BRL should submit a study of fish and wildlife and their habitats within the proposed permit area and adjacent areas as required under Rule 2.04.11. The Colorado Division of Wildlife submitted a letter to the Division on April 15, 1996 indicating that most of their concerns with the proposed operation have been addressed, however, one concern still remains. That concern is the proposed lack of crossings for big game animals moving in an east-west direction. Although the DOW has indicated their willingness to try the proposed plan, they are concerned that it may not work and a new crossing will be required in the future. This would be a more