My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR13290
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
3000
>
APPCOR13290
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:31 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:40:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/26/1985
Doc Name
REVIEW OF SENECA II WEST PERMIT APPLICATION
From
USFWS
To
OSM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
constitutes a change in land use as discussed under Section <br />816.133. <br />To this end, we believe that Peabody's reclamation should <br />better ensure replacement of existing wildlife habitat. In <br />particular, aspen stands (although limited on the permit <br />aera) provide an essential habitat component for a variety of <br />wildlife. According to map data provided in the permit <br />application (Exhibits 10-1 and 13-3), Peabody plans to restore <br />only about 40% of the aspen acreage that will be disturbed. <br />Furthermore, information obtained from USDA, Agricultural <br />Research Station personnel indicates that the proposed stocking <br />rate of one hundred aspen per acre is grossly inadequate for <br />stand re-establishment. Overall, we have found aspen <br />restoration to be extremely difficult. Because of the <br />difficulty in re-establishment and because of the potential <br />importance of aspen to wildlife, we recommend that the means by <br />which aspen reclamation take place be determined through <br />further, joint consultation with Peabody, USDA, USFWS, CDOW and <br />BLM. Development of sound aspen mitigation efforts should <br />consider more dense plantings, experimentation with live- <br />topsoiling, fencing and irrigation. <br />We strongly support Peabody's proposed use of live-topsoilinq <br />wherever possible and their reclamation design which provides <br />for greater topographic relief and diversity. We further <br />believe that the vegetation mixtures are adequate; and, in view <br />of Colorado Yampa Coal Company's success with live-topsoilinq, <br />we question the need for seeding properly treated live- <br />topsoiled acres. In addition, live-topsoilinq may provide <br />adequate densities and diversities of native shrubs. However, <br />if shrub establishment by this method proves to be ineffectual, <br />we believe that more extensive containerized plantings may be <br />warranted. In our view, the few islands of shrubs that Peabody <br />plans to re-establish are not adequate. <br />We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this permit <br />application. If you have any questions, please feel free to <br />contact either myself at 236-2675 or Mike Lockhart at FTS: 322- <br />0351. ~ / /'/ <br />~~~~~ <br />cc: FWS/HR, Grand Junction <br />CDOW, Grand Junction <br />BLM, Craig <br />MLRB, Denver <br />FWS/SE, Grand Junction <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.