Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~I I~~II~II~II~~ ~I~ <br />999 <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: (3071 866-3567 <br />FA%:(3031832-8106 <br />October 7, 1993 <br />Mr. Rick Mills <br />Colorado Yampa Coal Co. <br />29587 Routt County Road No. 27 <br />Oak Creek, CO 80467 <br />Re: Offsite Mitigation Discussion <br />PR-03, Alternative Land Use <br />Eckman Park Mine, File No. C-81-071 <br />Dear Mr. Mills: <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />OF ~~(O <br />ti's 4 <br />Ne~ <br />~ r8T6 ~ <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Mn:hael B. long <br />Division Director <br />As you are aware, the Mined Land Reclamation Board has stated its interest in coming to some <br />sort of an agreement prior to re-hearing PR-03, Alternative Land Use, Eckman Park Mine, File <br />No. C-81-071. <br />Due to lndividual schedules and time constraints we were unable to hold an additional meeting <br />prior to the MLRB tour at your mine site. However, based on your letter dated <br />September 22, 1993, the Division of Minerals and Geology has had further discussions with the <br />Division of Wildlife. <br />Your reasons for initiating PR-03 have been stated clearly in the record. The first was the loss <br />of this acreage for cattle grazing due to the uncertain affect this may have on shrubs in those <br />remaining rangeland areas. I believe DMG and DOW agree that conclusive evidence that <br />grazing enhances shrub development or negatively impacts shrubs is not supported one way or <br />the other. Hence the request by DMG and DOW for the grazing study. The study was <br />proposed with the realization that if the outcome concluded a negative grazing impact to <br />shrubs, the operator would be in fact penalized on the study area. Thus, DMG would agree to <br />ultimately drop the shrub standard to zero for those acres subject to the study. <br />When we discussed your interest in this proposal on September 23, 1993, you implied that <br />CYCC had no interest due to the small amount of acres proposed for the study (100 acres-. A <br />study area of 100 acres and a similarly sized control area would be more than adequate given <br />the productivity of the lands and the goal of the study. Larger study areas would require more <br />fencing and possibly additional sampling time and, as we agreed, this study should not impose <br />a large financial burden on the operator. DMG and DOW believe 100 acres is fair and <br />reasonable. <br />The Division of Wildlife contacted the Bureau of Land Management to determine their goals <br />with regard to the CYCC proposal to provide shrub seed (antelope bitterbrush) for 1000 acres <br />