My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV01430
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV01430
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:59:02 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:52:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981028
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/30/2006
Doc Name
Response to DMG Adequacy Concerns
From
Savage & Savage
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR37
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.
/
2
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
Service, an agency of the USDA) are of higher quality and better range condition than the <br />reference area, and technical documents submitted by Savage and Savage since 1994. <br />That such a complete sampling (13 years) of development and successional trends in a <br />prairie graminoid community has been undertaken by CEC goes faz above the technical <br />standard, historical record, or any other measure envisioned by those that originated the <br />regulations. <br />Further, the assertion that "using data from areas that have yet to achieve reclamation <br />success to devise a reclamation success standazd is not permitted by the regulations" is an <br />incorrect representation of the data that has been collected from the reclamation areas <br />over the past 13 years (see 4.15.7(2xd)(ii)). The successful achievement of final <br />reclamation standazds for both vegetation cover and herbaceous productivity from <br />reclamation azeas has been repeatedly demonstrated, and this valid data formed the basis <br />for our proposed revisions. <br />CEC representatives suggest a meeting with CDMG senior policy and technical staff to <br />establish where the methodology proposed in TR37 fits within the regulations. Given <br />what is perceived to be a difference of philosophy within the CDMG staff, should the <br />CDMG staff remain unwilling to consider the proposed methodology, CEC may be <br />forced to consider its alternatives with respect to the pursuit of a request for a declazatory <br />order from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board in order to clarify the <br />regulation. <br />2. The precipitation data CEC collects at the mine site is obtained from a "permanent" <br />weather station at the mine site. This information can be captured by the station absent <br />the presence of personnel at the mine, and is stored in a digital database for future use. If <br />no personnel were present it is anticipated that the data could be forwarded to CEC at the <br />Golden office where a data repository could be maintained for future use. <br />3. Since CDMG has agreed to the proposed species composition success standard, no <br />additional discussion or response is necessary. <br />With regard to establishing another "more representative" reference azea, CEC is unable <br />to recognize a benefit to pursuing this option. Over the past twenty-five years the <br />limitations of employing reference areas for use in establishing revegetation standards <br />have become particularly clear and CEC has attempted to remove these limitations <br />through the proposed methodology in TR37. <br />As mentioned above, we believe a meeting between CDMG senior policy and technical <br />staff and CEC representatives would be beneficial in moving this proposal forwazd. <br />Please contact me at your convenience to arrange this meeting. <br />Sincerely, <br />Michael S. Savage <br />Principal <br />cc: Mr. Don MacDonald, Coors Energy Company <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.