Laserfiche WebLink
,~ C <br />5. Page M122r7 states that a diagram of this spring installation is shown on the <br />following page. The Division could not locate this page in the revision application. <br />Please provide the Division with this diagram. <br />Revised Vegetation Standards <br />In this technical revision, Enron is also proposing to lower the vegetative cover success <br />standard, which is based on baseline data in the permit. They propose to modify the <br />diversity and woody plant standards, as well. Their basis for modifying these standards is <br />valid, however, the Division has a few questions which should be clarified before the <br />revision is approved. <br />Enron proposes to delete the portion of vegetative cover in the baseline data contributed <br />by annuals, biennials, and noxious weeds. This proposal follows suggestions in the Division's <br />bond release guideline. <br />6. Enron's proposal appears to be based on baseline data in Appendix K of the Meeker <br />permit. After deleting annuals, biennials and noxious weeds, Enron reports that <br />cover in the Sagebrush and Mountain Shrub communities is 64.6% and 63.9%, <br />respectively. Based on the numbers in the application on file at the Division office, <br />the cover in the Sagebrush and Mountain Shrub communities would be 64.0% and <br />63.8%, respectively. This would result in a cover standard of 63.86%, rather than <br />64.11%, as proposed. This discrepancy needs to be resolved. <br />7. The last sentence on page M-12 in the Meeker permit indicates the same sampling <br />methods will be used to estimate cover and production on the reclaimed area as were <br />used in the baseline study. This sentence should be removed from the permit. <br />8. It appears that inserting the revised pages (M12-O through M-12z6) would interrupt <br />the discussion of vegetative success standards currently in the permit. The <br />explanation in the permit of which acres correspond top which vegetative community <br />should probably be left in the permit. Please review the proposed revision to ensure <br />that text discussion remains complete. <br />9. The proposal includes letters from the NRCS, the Rio Blanco Weed Control District, <br />and the Colorado Division of Wildlife supporting the proposed modifications of <br />vegetative success standards. There is no indication that the affected landowners <br />have been consulted. Rule 2.05.5(1)(b) requires comments from landowners <br />regarding the postmining land use and reclamation plan. Since the proposed revision <br />would alter the assessment of success of the reclamation plan, updated comments <br />from the affected landowners should be included in the permit. Please provide these <br />comments. <br />