2003-03-11_REVISION - M1977342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

03/11/2003 13:19 9707253303 GRAND CO BUILDING DP PAGE 04 The Company and Grand County are in agreement as Amendment one (1) is proposed. Amendment two (2) requests a general change of post minin4g land use from "Open Forest' to "Rangeland"• Recently, the Company submitted a proposed change via (tecbrrical revision 12) in land use designation from "Open Forest" to "Rangeland." The Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology (the "DMG") cournered with a three (3) point proposal that the Compaiay declined for the presem. The Company states that they are not seeking to eliminate tree planting completely. Rather they are proposing to reduce tree planting aiguficantky to a documented level compatt~ble with "Rangeland" on their property (i.e., Strata 12). Strata l2 is an azea near and around the tailings pond area that has been heavily affected by commercial logging and thinning operations and the area has a natural occiuring stocking rate of 40-50 trees per acre. Ify promotion of a healthy rangeland is the reclamation prescription said natural stocking rates are acceptable and sustainable. On the other hand, the Compatry has a Forest Management Plan that ca11s for a re-stocking rate of 400-435 trees per acre, which is more representative of a "Forested" post_minin8 land use. It is recognized that there are huge reclamation coats looming and that a "Rangeland" designation would now, of course, better salt the Comparry's desire to greatly reduce financial warranty Certainly, economic reasonableness is a consideration for reclamation. Reclamation ie "designed to m+^;~7e as much as practicable the disruption firm the mint»g operation and to provide for the establishment of plant cover, stabilization of soil, the protection of water resources, or other measures appropriate to the subsequent beneficial use of such affected land (i.e, restoration to asub-alpine/alpine ecosystem, forest management (health and safety), commeraal timber operations and gazing)." The proposed general clrange to "Rangeland" is in principle saying that the value and the subsequent beneficial use of the affected land is plant cover for forage. The reclamation would be native shrubs, grasses and forba. Further, it represents grazing to be the primary post-miain$ land use, which is not 100% indicative of the land uses on this property and on adjacem public lands. Grazing is currently accommodated on site and it is questionable whether the management of this use is yielding a particularly healthy rangeland. The Company by their own actions recoBouze that this landscape is much more than "Rargeland" as they have conducted timber management, forest management and grazitlS operations for more than 20 years, and they have dome it with the assistance of the Colorado State Forest Service, the U. S. Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service. The "Open Forest" post mining land use is most appropriate as it best represents the landscape, ecosystem and multipke uses for this area of Grand County (the upper Williams Fork Valley). In addition, the arrrent post minirtg designation is a "best fit" with the management prescription of the adjacent public leads. The County does not support the requested change to "Rangeland", as it is not acceptable from an overall ecosystem point of view. A re-definition of trees and shrubs stoclrmg rates could definitely analyzed as part of this amendmerrt. It is the County's recommendation that the stoclong rate for trees and shrubs im the Reclamation Plan be ro-defused to a rate of 400-435 per acne; which is consistent with the Company' a Forest Management Plan. Page 3 of 9