Laserfiche WebLink
- >.>. - <br />lions. It was verified statistically that the McClane and Munger respective <br />communities were not significantly different in terms of vegetative productiv- <br />ity within the bounds of each vegetative community. Data from the McClane and <br />Munger sites were combined (within communities and between sites), and it was <br />determined that the combined .data met confidence level requirements. <br />Due to the small area of disturbance at the McClane site, the CMLRD has deter- <br />mined tfiat premine productivity and premine cover data may be applied as rec- <br />lamation success criteria. It was also determined that the productivity data <br />for the reference areas for the McClane Canyon vegetative communities did not <br />meet sample adequacy requirements and required stipulation (see preferred <br />alternative section). <br />The applicant has not demonstrated that adequate woody plant density sampling <br />has taken place at the McClane Canyon site and required stipulation (see pre- <br />ferred alternative section.) <br />The applicant has proposed a variance from baseline woody plant densities for <br />the greasewood shrubland and the shadscale shrubland. but has not provided <br />justification for the proposed stocking level, and is therefore stipulated <br />(see preferred alternative section). <br />The permittee has measured species diversity in terms of species richness and <br />species equitability but has not proposed a means to evaluate revegetation <br />success in terms of species diversity. <br />Q CMLRD is concerned with the ability of Salt Creek Mining Company to reclaim <br />the area given the low annual precipitation and subsequently stipulated it far <br />the compliance. <br />It has determined that no threatened or endangered species of plants exist at <br />the McClane Canyon site, based on information supplied by the applicant. <br />Fish and Wildlife <br />CMLRD has consulted with Division of Wildlife personnel who are familiar with <br />the area. Both agencies agree that there is little potential for adverse ef- <br />fects of the mine on wildlife since nearly all of the arrticipated surface dis- <br />turbance has occurred and a very limited area is affected. The U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service provided a concurrence that the wildlife portion of the ap- <br />plication was sufficient (see second paragraph of USFW letter). Other sugges- <br />tions made by them were considered by OSM and found not to be of sufficient <br />concern to warrant stipulation since the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) <br />feels there will be little potential for adverse impact on wildlife. DOW is <br />the recognized authority for big game resources and is quite familiar with <br />wildlife habitat in this area. <br />Backfilling and Grading <br />Because the mine is an underground mine, only a limited area of surface dis- <br />h turbance will require backfilling and grading. <br />All portals and the sediment pond will be backfilled. The coal seam will be <br />completely covered with backfilled material. Drainage will be restored to ap- <br />proximate pre-mining conditions. <br />If underground development waste is generated during mining it will be retain- <br />ed in the nine workings. <br />„ I <br />