Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Rick Siebel, Regional Director -9- <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Western Region Coordinating Center <br />May 16, 1995 <br />release request at that time, the Division informed AFO that the conditions cited in Part Two of <br />this TDN did not represent a violation of Rule 4.14.1(2)(a). <br />D. Division Apceal of AFO Determinations <br />AFO, in its May 5, 1995 response to the Division's responses to the TDN, stated that, with <br />regard to Part One of the TDN: <br />Section 4.05.4(4) requires a permanent stream channel to be reclaimed so as to <br />restore or approximate the pre-mining characteristics of the original stream <br />channel including the riparian habitat vegetation to promote the recovery and the <br />enhancement of the aquatic habitat. The culvert does not meet [his requirement. <br />The Division requests the Western Region Coordinating Center reverse this determination. <br />As stated previously, Starkville Gulch is a dry, ephemeral drainage containing no natural aquatic <br />habitats. Some water does occasionally become retained within artificially created berms placed <br />in the drainage outside of the permit azea by the surface landowners for stock watering purposes. <br />Due to the gulch's ephemeral nature, the natural vegetation within the gulch is not predominantly <br />of the type associated with typical perennial stream riparian azeas (Kentucky bluegrass, cattails, <br />reed canary grass, rushes, alkali sacaton, and switchgrass), but rather more like that associated <br />with dryland grazing, such as pinyon pine, juniper, blue grama, sideoats grama, Western <br />wheatgrass, fescue, cheatgrass, and Gambel oak. By leaving the culvert in place, 1.07 acres of <br />grazing land will remain to reestablish these dryland grazing species. <br />AFO further stated in its May 5, 1995 response letter that the Division inappropriately referred <br />to the section of Colorado's Regulations pertaining to steep slope mining (Section 2.06.5) in the <br />Division's Proposed Bond Release Decision. This is correct, and the Division has revised its <br />Proposed Bond Release Decision to reflect the removal of any reference to Section 2.06.5 in the <br />Division's determinations. A copy of this revised document is enclosed. <br />Based on the information provided herein, the Division believes that the conditions cited in Part <br />One of this TDN do not represent a violation of Rule 4.05.4(4). The Division requests the <br />Western Region Coordination Center reverse the determination of AFO that the Division <br />responses to this part of the TDN were inappropriate. <br />With regard to the Division's April 21, 1995 response pertaining to Part Two of the TDN, AFO <br />stated that: <br />Transects on the west side of the refuse pile were as steep as 19 degrees and 21 <br />degrees on the south slope. DMG's practice of measuring slope gradient by <br />averaging the transects for the entire disturbed area is unacceptable. Using this <br />method could allow large areas of unacceptable steep slopes to be approved if <br />