My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE58909
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE58909
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:01:13 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 6:03:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/2/2007
Doc Name
Notice of Appeal
From
Colorado Court of Appeal
To
MLRB
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.
/
41
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
FEB-01-06 04:33PN FROIh-RL f303 B66 5385 I-673 P.016/02Y F-B36 <br />operation_ The Service acknowledged the presence of a golden eagle nest in the vieiniry, <br />but concluded that it was at a distance suggesting impacts to the golden eagles from on- <br />site operations were unlikely. <br />32. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has met the minimum <br />requirements of Rule 6.4.8 - Exhtbit H. <br />33. Issue 7(J), Adequacy of Reclamation Ptan to Achieve Post-IOlining Land Use of <br />"Wildlife Habitat," Rules 3.1.10 and 6.4.5. The Division concluded that the Applicant <br />had submitted a revegetation plan that complied with tha minimum requirements of Rules <br />3.1.10 and 6.4.5 and is designed to facilitate reclamation for future wildlife habitat. The <br />bivision stated that the revegetation plan includes provisions for re-establishment of <br />riparian trees and shrubs, as well as establishment of native grasses. Disturbed areas, <br />with the exception of highwalls, will be covered with available soil material and <br />revegetated with grasses, trees and shrubs_ Neither Rule 3.1.10 norRule 6.4.5 requires <br />the Applicant to provide revegetation at a 1:1 ratio. The Division stated that the proposed <br />bond is adequate to cover the cost of revegetation as specified in the reclamation plan if <br />bond forfeiture is required. Ifrevegetation fails' during final reclamation, the Division <br />would treat the matter as a compliance issue and would require the Applicant or its <br />successor to take appropriate measures to establish adequate vegetation. <br />34. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has met the nvnimum <br />requirements of Rules 3.1.10 and 6.4.5_ <br />35. Issue 7(I~, Adequacy of Plan to Control Weeds (Rule 3.1.10(17). The Applicant has <br />provided a revegetation plan that meets the minimal requirements for control of noxious <br />weeds and is designed to facilitate reclamation for fixture wildlife habitat. The vegetation <br />MMRR Board Order, M-2004-067 I S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.